Surrey ICBC Car Injury Lawyers warn that rear end accidents can seriously injure the bones, joints ligaments and soft tissues of the neck, back and legs of innocent victims. MacLean personal Injury’s Surrey ICBC Car Injury Lawyers will help you obtain justice and the highest fair settlement or trial award. We have 5 offices across BC in Vancouver, Surrey, Kelowna, Richmond and Fort St John/Dawson Creek. We meet with you for free and will provide an initial assessment of your case and a plan for you to move forward.
Surrey ICBC Car Injury Lawyers
MacLean law’s experienced Surrey ICBC Car Injury Lawyers know these injuries cause pain and suffering but even more frightening is the negative impact these injuries have on someone’s ability to work and earn a living.
MacLean Personal Injury’s Surrey ICBC Car Injury Lawyers note in a recent BC Supreme Court case a rear end accident victim named Ms. Beaton was diagnosed with soft tissue injuries to her neck and upper and mid-back and with debilitating cervicogenic headaches. The crash caused her to have trouble sleeping more than a few hours a night and it was expected her condition would worsen. She also suffered from depression the judge found was caused by the accident.
The judge awarded damages of $75,000 to her for future wage loss and loss of capacity to earn income.
MacLean Personal Injury’s Surrey ICBC Car Injury Lawyers want potential clients to be aware of what the test is to obtain a proper and generous personal injury settlement for wage loss is. Our lawyers will work with you to recover physically and mentally and most importantly financially.
In Beaton v Perkes the BC Supreme Court Judge set out a punchy summary of the law:
Future Wage Loss and Loss of Capacity The following legal principles are relevant:
(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; see 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; see 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; see 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”; see Brown v. Golaiy (1985), 26 B.C.L.R. (3d) 353 at para. 7 (S.C.); and Perren v. Lalair, 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; see Perren at para. 33;
(f) The earnings approach will be more appropriate when the loss is more easily measurable; see 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 endeavor to use factual mathematical anchors as a starting foundation to quantify such loss; see 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; see Rosvold at para. 11.