BC court sets future loss of income-earning capacity at over $292,000
The BC Supreme Court recently awarded a married couple $654,314 in total damages in personal injury proceedings arising from a motor vehicle accident, with the wife receiving $624,314 and the husband getting $30,000.
In November 2018, the plaintiffs were driving on Lakeshore Drive in Kelowna, BC, When they stopped for traffic, the defendant rear-ended their vehicle. The defendant admitted liability for the accident.
After the accident, the wife suffered persistent neck, shoulder, and upper back pain. She also experienced frequent headaches, sleeplessness, anxiety, and other emotional challenges. She requested damages for pain and suffering, loss of past and future income-earning capacity, loss of housekeeping capacity, and cost of future care, as well as special damages.
On the other hand, the husband suffered ongoing mild intermittent back pain that occasionally disrupted his sleep. He asked the court for non-pecuniary damages for his pain and suffering.
Court findings and award
In Waltmans v Murovec, 2024 BCSC 1398, the BC Supreme Court awarded total damages of $654,314.
The wife received $140,000 in non-pecuniary damages for her pain, suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life. The court based this award on her ongoing physical pain, the emotional toll of the injuries, and the significant changes to her lifestyle and relationships.
The court awarded her $40,000 for past loss of income-earning capacity and $292,146 for future loss of income-earning capacity. The court recognized that the accident significantly impaired her ability to work as a dental hygienist. She had planned to increase her working hours to four days per week but was only able to work three days a week due to the pain that she experienced, the court noted.
The court set her cost of future care at $150,746, given the long-term impact of her injuries. This amount covered expenses for ongoing medical treatment, pain management therapy, vocational support, and assistance with household tasks that she could no longer perform.
Lastly, the court awarded her $1,422 in special damages for out-of-pocket expenses relating to her treatment and management of her injuries.
As for the husband, the court awarded him $30,000 in non-pecuniary damages, which reflected the intermittent nature of his back pain and its impact on his recreational and daily activities.
The court found both plaintiffs’ testimonies credible and consistent. The evidence showed a direct link between the wife’s injuries and the accident, which had substantial and lasting impacts on her physical and emotional health, the court said.
The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the plaintiffs failed to mitigate their damages. Both plaintiffs made reasonable efforts to manage their symptoms after the accident, the court decided.
