This injury claimant was involved in 2 car accidents. In the first she was rear-ended by a cement truck. In the second accident she was in Victoria, on her way to the airport, when the taxi she was in was struck on the side by a minivan driven.(Lauriente v. Schoonhoven,2017 BCSC 2246)
The claimant worked as an emergency nurse and in awarding her $450,000 for loss of future income and pension the judge had this to say:
In Pololos v. Cinnamon-Lopez, 2016 BCSC 81, I said:
 The relevant legal principles are well-established:
a) To the extent possible, a plaintiff should be put in the position he/she would have been in, but for the injuries caused by the defendant’s negligence; Lines v. W & D Logging Co. Ltd., 2009 BCCA 106 at para. 185, leave to appeal ref’d  S.C.C.A. No. 197;
b) The central task of the Court is to compare the likely future of the plaintiff’s working life if the Accident had not occurred with the plaintiff’s likely future working life after the Accident; Gregory v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, 2011 BCCA 144 at para. 32;
c) The assessment of loss must be based on the evidence, but requires an exercise of judgment and is not a mathematical calculation; Rosvold v. Dunlop, 2001 BCCA 1 at para. 18;
d) The two possible approaches to assessment of loss of future earning capacity are the “earnings approach” and the “capital asset approach”; Brown v. Golaiy (1985), 26 B.C.L.R. (3d) 353 at para. 7 (S.C.); and Perren v. Lalari, 2010 BCCA 140 at paras. 11-12;
e) Under either approach, the plaintiff must prove that there is a “real and substantial possibility” of various future events leading to an income loss; Perren at para. 33;
f) The earnings approach will be more appropriate when the loss is more easily measurable; Westbroek v. Brizuela, 2014 BCCA 48 at para. 64. Furthermore, while assessing an award for future loss of income is not a purely mathematical exercise, the Court should endeavour to use factual mathematical anchors as a starting foundation to quantify such loss; Jurczak v. Mauro, 2013 BCCA 507 at paras. 36-37.
See also the summary of legal principles in Hardychuk v. Johnstone, 2012 BCSC 1359 at paras. 192-198.
Having regard to both negative and positive contingencies an award of $400,000 was found to fairly compensate for her loss of future earning capacity.
Her pension loss if she had a reduction of 50% over the remainder of her working years to age sixty five would be almost $100,000. The judge considered that an award of $50,000 properly compensated her for this aspect of her future income loss.
The court went on to award the following amounts:
|i)||Pain and Suffering||$100,000.00|
|ii)||Past Wage Loss||$32,000.00|
|iii)||Loss of Future Earning Capacity||$450,000.00|
|iv)||Cost of Future Care||$160,000.00|
|v)||Loss of Housekeeping Capacity||$10,000.00|
Posted by Personal Injury Lawyer Mr. Renn A. Holness, B.A. LL.B.