ICBC Loss of Earning Capacity Lawyer: 604-576-5400
When you are injured in a Surrey ICBC car accident you need to hire the best Surrey ICBC personal injury lawyer so you are fairly treated by iCBC and get the justice and biggest personal injury damages award. Our skilled team of Surrey ICBC accident personal injury lawyers will ensure you get the justice you deserve.
In Dunne v. Sharma, a young healthy woman with experience in the hospitality industry suffered injuries from two separate “rear end” accidents. The Surrey ICBC accident injury victim claimed damages for pain and suffering and economic loss of well over $1,000,000. She received a substantial damages award for her injuries.
Best Surrey Future Loss Of Earning Capacity Lawyer Tips
Here’s what the judge said about her injuries and how they diminished her career.
 In the submission of the plaintiff, the accidents and their injuries resulted in her suffering from chronic myofascial pain, pain in her neck, upper and lower back and hips, thoracic outlet syndrome and significant psychological injury, namely a severe generalized anxiety disorder, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder.
 The plaintiff says these injuries and conditions have impacted and will continue to impact upon all facets of her life, including her marital relations, her employment and her future parenting role.
 In these actions, the plaintiff seeks to recover non-pecuniary damages, past wage loss, loss of future income earning capacity, cost of future care and special damages.
 Conceptually, an individual’s capacity to earn an income is viewed as a capital asset. As award for future loss of earning capacity is thus compensation for a pecuniary loss. The authorities make clear that determination of the award is an assessment, not a calculation. It entails comparing what was the likely future of the plaintiff if the accident had not occurred and the likely future of the plaintiff after the accident has taken place.
 Madam Justice Dardi has provided a helpful explanation of the relevant principles in Cruz v. Rahsid, 2013 BCSC 1530. That part of her decision says this:
 The legal principle that governs the assessment for loss of earning capacity is that, insofar as is possible, the plaintiff should be put in the position he or she would have been in but for the injuries caused by the defendants’ negligence: Lines v. W & D Logging Co. Ltd., 2009 BCCA 106 at para. 185. It is well-settled that an award for future loss of earning capacity represents compensation for a pecuniary loss: Gregory v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, 2011 BCCA 144 at para. 32. Compensation must be made for the loss of earning capacity and not for the loss of earnings: Andrews v. Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd.,  2 S.C.R. 229; X. v. Y, 2011 BCSC 944 at para. 188.
 The recent jurisprudence of the Court of Appeal has affirmed that the plaintiff must demonstrate both impairment to his or her earning capacity and that there is a real and substantial possibility that the diminishment in earning capacity will result in a pecuniary loss. If the plaintiff discharges that requirement, he or she may prove the quantification of that loss of earning capacity either on an earnings approach or a “capital asset” approach as described in Brown v. Golaiy (1985), 26 B.C.L.R. (3d) 353 (S.C.); Perren v. Lalari, 2010 BCCA 140 at para. 32; Morgan v. Galbraith, 2013 BCCA 305 at para. 53. Regardless of the approach, the court must endeavour to quantify the financial harm accruing to the plaintiff over the course of his or her working career: Pett v. Pett, 2009 BCCA 232 at para. 19; X. v. Y at para. 183. The authorities establish that an inability to perform an occupation that is not a realistic alternative occupation is not proof of an income loss.
 As enumerated by the court in Falati v. Smith, 2010 BCSC 465 at para. 41, aff’d 2011 BCCA 45, the principles which inform the assessment of loss of earning capacity include the following:
(i) The standard of proof in relation to hypothetical or future events is simple probability, not the balance of probabilities: Reilly v. Lynn, 2003 BCCA 49 at para. 101. Hypothetical events are to be given weight according to their relative likelihood: Athey,  3 S.C.R. 458 at para. 27.
(ii) The court must make allowances for the possibility that the assumptions upon which an award is based may prove to be wrong: Milina v. Bartsch (1985), 49 B.C.L.R. (2d) 33 at 79 (S.C.), aff’d (1987), 49 B.C.L.R. (2d) 99 (C.A.). Evidence which supports a contingency must show a “realistic as opposed to a speculative possibility”: Graham v.Rourke (1990), 75 O.R. (2d) 622 at 636 (C.A.).
(iii) The court must assess damages for loss of earning capacity, rather than calculating those damages with mathematical precision: Mulholland (Guardian ad litem of) v. Riley Estate (1995), 12 B.C.L.R. (3d) 248 (C.A.) at para. 43. The assessment is based on the evidence, taking into account all positive and negative contingencies. The overall fairness and reasonableness of the award must be considered: Rosvold v. Dunlop, 2001 BCCA 1 at para. 11.
Our Surrey ICBC Loss Of Earning Capacity Lawyers are pleased to meet with you for a free initial consultation to get you started on the road to medical and financial recovery. We’ll make sure ICBC treats you fairly and you get the highest possible money settlement.