Ruling rejects 'crumbling skull' argument that hairstylist is predisposed to shoulder issues
The Supreme Court of British Columbia recently awarded $839,788 in damages to a hairdresser who experienced whiplash, neck and shoulder pain, persistent headaches, and driving anxiety following a motor vehicle accident in North Vancouver.
A collision occurred in February 2018 when the plaintiff was driving eastbound on Mount Seymour Parkway. The defendant, who had been stopped on the road’s right side, suddenly attempted a U-turn or left turn. The defendant’s truck struck the passenger side of the plaintiff’s car and pushed it to the westbound lane.
The plaintiff claimed damages for general injuries and for past and future loss of earning capacity.
The defendant denied liability. She argued that the plaintiff attempted to pass her on the left while she was making a left turn. Alternatively, she suggested that liability should be shared equally. She also alleged that the plaintiff’s shoulder issues were related to her work as a hairstylist rather than the accident.
In Vujevic v Parnell, 2024 BCSC 1372, the British Columbia Supreme Court awarded the plaintiff $839,788 in total damages, consisting of $150,000 in non-pecuniary damages, $120,000 for past loss of earning capacity, $550,000 for future loss of earning capacity, $16,800 for future care costs, and $2,988.29 in special damages.
The court deemed the defendant fully liable for the collision and the plaintiff’s injuries. The court found the defendant negligent for failing to ensure that she could safely make her turn as required by BC’s Motor Vehicle Act, 1996. The court rejected the defendant’s version of events, saw inconsistencies in her testimony, and found no evidence supporting her claims.
The court accepted the plaintiff’s testimony that she had no prior history of shoulder pain and that her symptoms began immediately after the accident. Despite the repetitive nature of her work as a hairstylist, her accident caused the shoulder issues, as supported by her medical expert’s testimony confirming that her shoulder injuries were a result of the accident, the court said.
The court rejected the defendant’s argument that a pre-existing condition caused the plaintiff’s shoulder injuries. The court found no evidence of such a condition that would have caused similar symptoms.
The court also disagreed with the defendant’s “crumbling skull” argument, which suggested that the plaintiff was predisposed to developing shoulder problems regardless of the accident, given her occupation.
The court considered the evidence presented by the defendant’s expert witness insufficient to support the “crumbling skull” claim. The expert’s opinion, which referred to general studies about musculoskeletal issues in hairdressers, lacked specific details about the plaintiff’s condition, the court noted.
