BC court finds no failure to mitigate damages on the plaintiff's part
The Supreme Court of British Columbia recently awarded $413,666.35 in damages to a woman who sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident.
In May 2015, the plaintiff was driving on 33rd Avenue in Vancouver, BC. After she stopped behind traffic, a taxi owned and operated by the defendants struck her vehicle from behind. The defendants were the cab driver and the taxi company.
The impact caused immediate pain in the plaintiff’s neck, which later extended to her upper and lower back. Despite this, she was able to drive her co-worker, who was a passenger in her car, to a train station. She then drove herself home.
Before the accident, the plaintiff had worked as a senior care aide for over three decades at a long-term care facility in Vancouver. Her duties involved physically demanding tasks, such as assisting elderly residents with mobility, hygiene, and daily activities.
After the accident, the plaintiff claimed that she experienced headaches and persistent pain in her neck, back, and shoulders. Her condition allegedly did not significantly improve despite medical treatment. She claimed that the accident affected her ability to perform her job and her quality of life and disrupted her plan to continue working until the age of 65.
The plaintiff commenced a personal injury case. The defendants admitted liability, which left the court to deal with the issue of the assessment of damages.
No failure to mitigate found
In Gill v Bahman, 2024 BCSC 1453, the British Columbia Supreme Court issued a ruling determining that the accident caused the plaintiff’s injuries, which included soft tissue damage and cervicogenic headaches, and resulted in lasting impacts on her professional and personal life.
The court rejected the defendants’ argument that the plaintiff failed to mitigate her damages because she did not attend a kinesiology program and did not seek part-time work. The court noted that she made reasonable efforts to manage her symptoms through physiotherapy, massage, and home exercise and continued to work full-time until her retirement.
The court then determined the appropriate amount of damages. It awarded the plaintiff $145,000 in non-pecuniary damages, which included compensation for pain and suffering and the loss of housekeeping capacity. The court accepted that her injuries significantly impaired her ability to enjoy life and to maintain her household in the standard that she once did.
The court then set the value of past wage loss at $200,000 on the basis that the plaintiff would have continued working until she was 65 years old if not for the accident. Future wage loss was valued at $34,500, covering the period between the trial and her 65th birthday. The court also found her entitled to $20,000 for the loss of pension benefits due to her early retirement.
Finally, the court awarded $5,000 for the cost of future care, specifically for seasonal cleaning services, and $9,166.35 in special damages for out-of-pocket expenses relating to the plaintiff’s treatment.
