Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Dispute centered on causation, aggravation, and indivisibility of injuries from multiple incidents.

• Defendant argued that the plaintiff’s most serious injury occurred after the original motor vehicle accident.

• Trial judge found plaintiff’s neck, back, and both shoulder injuries stemmed from the first accident.

• Alleged inconsistencies in the plaintiff’s testimony did not undermine his overall credibility.

• No liability was found against the second driver or the employer in subsequent incidents.

• Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed as trial findings were within the judge’s discretion.

Facts and outcome of the case

Varinder Singh Pannu brought two actions for damages after suffering injuries in two separate motor vehicle accidents—one on March 8, 2018, involving Zachary Jordan Behnke, and another on February 20, 2020, involving Nancy Wong. In between these, he experienced a workplace slip-and-fall accident on November 14, 2018. The core of the dispute focused on whether the most significant injury to Mr. Pannu’s left shoulder was caused by the first accident (Behnke), the workplace fall, or the later accident (Wong).

At trial, liability was admitted by Mr. Behnke for the first accident. However, Ms. Wong denied responsibility for the second. The trial judge found that Mr. Pannu sustained injuries to his neck, back, and both shoulders as a result of the first accident and that these injuries were later aggravated by the workplace fall and the second car accident. Despite inconsistencies in Mr. Pannu’s testimony and clinical records, the judge accepted the core of his narrative and concluded the injuries were indivisible, making Mr. Behnke fully liable for all damages.

The judge dismissed the claim against Ms. Wong, finding there was insufficient evidence to determine fault. Damages awarded totaled approximately $538,691, including $75,000 in non-pecuniary damages, $27,400 for past income loss, $423,707 for future income loss, and $12,584 for cost of future care.

Mr. Behnke appealed the findings on causation, indivisibility of injuries, and the damages awarded. Mr. Pannu cross-appealed, seeking a higher award for non-pecuniary damages. The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, upholding the trial judge’s findings as reasonable and legally sound. It confirmed the judge had applied the appropriate legal tests for causation and indivisibility, and was entitled to rely on the plaintiff’s evidence despite some credibility concerns. Thus, the damages awarded stood, and Mr. Behnke remained fully liable.