MacLean Personal Injury ICBC Injury Lawyers In Surrey Protect Injured Senior Citizens
Our highly experienced and highly rated ICBC injury lawyers in Surrey handle cases involving injured persons of all ages. When a senior citizen is injured, factors such as ensuring the matter gets settled promptly and ensuring there is no delay after the victim’s injuries have stabilized is important. Call 604-576-5400 top speak with our compassionate and bright team of ICBC injury lawyers in Surrey.
Don’t Suffer In Silence Or Accept ICBC Telling You It’s Because You Are Old That You Ache
In cases of older victims, our skilled team of ICBC injury lawyers in Surrey will deal with ICBC adjustors and defence counsel who will attempt to say the injuries or inability to do tasks is as a result of old age not the car accident. We also note that seniors who worked hard all their lives and who have a stoic attitude about suffering in silence and not wanting to be a bother to anyone can often end up on the short end of the stick in settlements with ICBC because they fail to hire a lawyer who will stand up to ICBC.
Click here to find out why hiring lawyer makes sense. We know how honest you are and that you deserve a fair settlement. Hire one of our skilled and understanding ICBC injury lawyers in Surrey today. We will meet with you for free and we do not get paid our legal fees until you do.
Senior Citizen Injuries and Pain and Suffering Test Can Differ
In the 2016 case of Johal v. Radek,, Mr. Justice Voith provided reasons for judgment that tell us how a court deals with a senior citizen who is injured. Here’s what our ICBC injury lawyers in Surrey extracted for you from the judgment:
 Ms. Johal is presently 70 years old. She moved to Canada with her husband in 1972. She has three adult children, two of whom gave evidence at trial. She has, since her arrival in Canada, worked almost exclusively for two different companies in various janitorial capacities. She has worked for her present employer, The Original Cakerie (“The Cakerie”), since 1997. Following the Accident, she was off of work for approximately 11 months. She thereafter returned to work on a full-time basis and she continues to work in that capacity at the present time.
 The considerations that are relevant to an award of non-pecuniary damages were explained in Stapley v. Hejslet, 2006 BCCA 34, leave to appeal ref’d  S.C.C.A. No. 100: The inexhaustive list of common factors cited in Boyd that influence an award of non-pecuniary damages includes:
(a) age of the plaintiff;
(b) nature of the injury;
(c) severity and duration of pain;
(e) emotional suffering; and
(f) loss or impairment of life;
I would add the following factors, although they may arguably be subsumed in the above list:
(g) impairment of family, marital and social relationships;
(h) impairment of physical and mental abilities;
(i) loss of lifestyle; and
(j) the plaintiff’s stoicism (as a factor that should not, generally speaking, penalize the plaintiff: Giang v. Clayton,  B.C.J. No. 163 (QL), 2005 BCCA 54).
The Golden Years Doctrine
The judge commented on the special factors a court will consider when someone is over 65 and in their “golden years”
 In this case, the issue of Ms. Johal’s age is potentially relevant. An award for non-pecuniary loss addresses both losses to the date of trial, and also those losses that are likely to be suffered in the future.
 Some cases rely on the “Golden Years” doctrine, which suggests that an injury may have a greater impact on an older person, whose activities are already constrained by age, than on a younger person who may be active in other respects; see for example; Taylor v. Grundholm, 2010 BCSC 860 at para. 60; and Fata v. Heinonen, 2010 BCSC 385 at para. 88. Other cases suggest that the competing considerations of the plaintiff’s age and the application of the “Golden Years” doctrine may balance each other out; see Mathroo v. Edge-Partington, 2015 BCSC 122 at para. 96; and Duifhuis v. Bloom, 2013 BCSC 1180 at paras. 58-59. It is this last group of cases that I consider most useful and that I rely upon.
Loss of Future Earning Capacity
Our tenacious ICBC injury lawyers in Surrey appreciate the cogent summary of what the test is for someone to get money to compensate them for lost past and future wages due to injuries that prevented them from being able to work while recovering AND for a diminished ability to work in the future because of the compromises to their abilities from injuries they will not fully recover from. In Pololos v. Cinnamon-Lopez, 2016 BCSC 81, I described the legal principles that pertain to this head of loss and 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.
- g) When relying on an “earnings approach”, the Court must nevertheless always consider the overall fairness and reasonableness of the award, taking into account all of the evidence; Rosvold at para. 11.
Over $100,000 In Total Received By Ms. Johal
In the end Ms Johal received over $100,000 plus costs to compensate her for pain and suffering, past and future wage loss, cost of future care and special damages.
We will ensure you or your loved one is treated fairly and with respect from the start. Call us now across BC at any of our 4 offices conveniently located in South Surrey, Vancouver, Kelowna and Fort St John.