The plaintiff in this matter was injured in three motor vehicle accidents. He was 17 years old at the first accident, 19 at the second, and 20 at the third. He sustained soft tissue injuries in all three collisions. The defendants have admitted liability for the collisions. They do not require that damages be allocated in accord with the harm done by each accident....
Six years ago the plaintiff was traversing a crosswalk in downtown Kamloops, B.C., when he was struck by the defendants car. Neither party saw the other until the moment of impact. Liability for the collision is in issue because, while the defendant acknowledges her own fault, she says that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent for failing to look out for his safety....
In this personal injury damages assessment, the main issues are the quantum of the plaintiffs claims for non-pecuniary loss, loss of past and future opportunity to earn income and cost of future care. The plaintiffs claims arise out of her complaints of psychological injury including post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and anxiety together with chronic myofascial pain and headaches, all of which she attributes to a motor vehicle accident. The defendants have admitted liability for the accident, but contest the plaintiffs claims for compensation.Credibility...
This is a personal injury damages action arising out of two motor vehicle accidents. The main issues are, on the one hand, the plaintiffs claims for loss of opportunity to earn past income and for reduction of his future earning capacity, and on the other, the defendants claims that the plaintiff failed to mitigate his loss and that his injuries have not impacted his earning capacity in a legally meaningful way....
The primary issue in this plaintiff's personal injury action is whether the plaintiff's ongoing complaints of pain in her right back and right shoulder are caused by a motor vehicle accident in which she was involved 12 years ago. The quantum of the plaintiff's damages for non‑pecuniary loss, cost of care, and reduction of earning capacity all turn on that causation issue.Discussion...
In this action for disability benefits, the issue is whether the plaintiff was an employed person when he was injured in a motor vehicle accident. To be an employed person for the purpose of qualifying for disability benefits, the plaintiff must have worked for 6 of the 12 months immediately preceding his injury. The plaintiff asserts that because he had worked approximately 1,100 hours in the preceding year he must be taken to have worked for at least 6 of the previous 12 months. The defendant argues that the plaintiff accumulated those hours of work over a period of only 20 or 21 weeks and that the plaintiff cannot, therefore, be said to have worked for 6 of the previous 12 months.The Facts...
The parties in this family action seek orders for the division of their family assets, spousal and child support, and for custody, guardianship and access for their two children....