The plaintiff started consuming excessive amounts of alcohol following a car accident
The Supreme Court of British Columbia reduced the damages awarded to a plaintiff injured in two motor vehicle accidents, citing her prolonged alcohol abuse and refusal to follow recommended treatments as significant factors that delayed her recovery and affected her compensation.
The first accident caused a disc herniation, chronic back pain, and other physical and psychological effects. The second accident, while minor, temporarily aggravated the symptoms from the first incident but did not result in new injuries. The court found that the injuries from the first accident intensified pre-existing conditions, including back pain, headaches, and mental health challenges, which had already affected the plaintiff's education and employment before the collisions.
Following the first accident, the plaintiff began consuming large amounts of alcohol, ultimately developing a severe alcohol use disorder that persisted for over four years. This substance abuse inhibited recovery by delaying physical and mental health treatment. At the time of trial, the plaintiff had achieved sobriety for more than a year but continued to report pain, reduced mobility, and limited ability to manage household tasks.
The Supreme Court awarded damages for non-pecuniary losses, acknowledging the significant impact of the injuries on the plaintiff's lifestyle. However, it reduced the award by 25 percent due to the plaintiff's failure to follow recommended treatments, such as physiotherapy and counseling. The plaintiff also received compensation for past income loss, reflecting the period of severe pain and inability to work following the first accident. However, the court reduced this amount by 15 percent for similar reasons.
For future income loss, the court determined that the plaintiff's ongoing symptoms would limit earning capacity. The award recognized both the injuries sustained and the plaintiff's pre-existing health challenges, as well as her refusal to follow prescribed rehabilitation. The court also awarded a sum for future care but expressed concerns about whether the plaintiff would follow the recommended treatments.
Ultimately, the judgment emphasized the plaintiff's obligation to mitigate damages and found that her failure to seek appropriate medical and rehabilitative care contributed to prolonged symptoms. While the court acknowledged the significant impact of the accidents, it balanced this against the role of pre-existing conditions and choices made after the collisions.
