Our Surrey Punjabi speaking personal injury lawyers understand that our South Asian clients differ in their fluency in English from fully fluent to something less than total fluency. Our skilled Surrey Punjabi speaking personal injury lawyers know that being able to explain the accident and your injuries in your mother tongue is often crucial to success at trial.
MacLean Personal Injury has fluent Punjabi speaking personal injury lawyers to increase your chances of obtaining the highest fair personal injury settlement. Meet with for free before you meet with ICBC so we can protect you. Spencer MacLean will give you a free no obligation initial assessment of your claim. Call him at 1-877-602-9900.
Surrey Punjabi Speaking Personal Injury Lawyers: 604-602-9000
Our Surrey Punjabi speaking personal injury lawyers understand that our South Asian clients differ in their fluency in English from fully fluent to something less than total fluency. Spencer MacLean and Aman Kahlon are pleased to meet with you at our Surrey or downtown Vancouver office. Call Spencer at 604-602-9000 to meet in Vancouver or call 604-576-5400 to meet with Spencer and Aman in Surrey.
Surrey Punjabi Speaking Personal Injury Lawyers
The Punjabi and Hindi speaking population in Surrey and Vancouver deserve the best possible personal injury services and we are proud to have a team of lawyers who understand the language and cultural factors that affect our Surrey and Vancouver Punjabi speaking ICBC personal injury client’s claims.
If you are stressed out over a claim and feel ICBC hasn’t been taking your claim as seriously as they should please pick up the phone and set up an appointment to meet with us. Better yet, talk to us first so we can ensure your ICBC injury claim is treated with respect.
In the recent BCCA case of Villing v. Husseni defence counsel appealed a damage award for a young woman who suffered chronic back pain and argued:
 This appeal concerns the assessment of damages for personal injury arising from two motor vehicle accidents. The case appealed from is indexed as Villing v. Husseni, 2015 BCSC 1604. The appeal focuses on: (1) the assessment of damages for loss of future income earning capacity, and (2) the assessment of damages for non-pecuniary loss. The appellant argues that the awards of damages under these heads are inordinately high.
The Court of Appeal rejected defence counsel’s appeal and pointed ou the law was clear:
 The standard of review for damage awards is as stated by McIntyre J. in Woelk v. Halvorson,  2 S.C.R. 430 at 435‑36:
It is well settled that a Court of Appeal should not alter a damage award made at trial merely because, on its view of the evidence, it would have come to a different conclusion. It is only where a Court of Appeal comes to the conclusion that there was no evidence upon which a trial judge could have reached this conclusion, or where he proceeded upon a mistaken or wrong principle, or where the result reached at the trial was wholly erroneous, that a Court of Appeal is entitled to intervene. The well-known passage from the judgment of Viscount Simon in Nance v. British Columbia Electric Railway Co. Ld. [ A.C. 601], at p. 613,–approved and applied in this Court in Andrews v. Grand and Toy Alberta Ltd. [ 2 S.C.R. 229]–provides ample authority for this proposition. He said:
The principles which apply under this head are not in doubt. Whether the assessment of damages be by a judge or a jury, the appellate court is not justified in substituting a figure of its own for that awarded below simply because it would have awarded a different figure if it had tried the case at first instance. Even if the tribunal of first instance was a judge sitting alone, then, before the appellate court can properly intervene, it must be satisfied either that the judge, in assessing the damages, applied a wrong principle of law (as by taking into account some irrelevant factor or leaving out of account some relevant one); or, short of this, that the amount awarded is either so inordinately low or so inordinately high that it must be a wholly erroneous estimate of the damage….
This principle has long been established. An earlier example of its application in this Court in somewhat different circumstances may be found in McCannell v. McLean [ S.C.R. 341].
 The trial judge allowed $100,000 for loss of future earning capacity. The median earnings of a paralegal are $55,000 per annum and the average earnings of a paralegal are about $60,000 per annum. In my opinion, given the chronicity of the complaints, the kind of treatment proposed, the impact of that treatment on income, and the prospect of repeated rhizotomy treatments, which generally offer only temporary relief, the judge’s allowance for loss of future earning capacity was not outside the appropriate range for such an award.
 It follows that I would dismiss the first ground of appeal.
Pain and Suffering Appeal Also Rejected
The Court then went on to dismiss defence counsel’s afterthought of also disputing the amount for pain and suffering damages.
In this case defence counsel was unsuccessful but it points out just how skeptical adjusters and defence counsel are of innocent victim’s injuries and the impact they have on the injured victims’s life and ability to earn income moving forward.
We recommend you contact our Punjabi speaking personal injury lawyers immediately after suffering a Surrey or Vancouver personal injury. We will meet for you for free and we are only paid when you are. Call Spencer MacLean 1-877-602-9900.