Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Full liability for the accident was found against the defendants, with no contributory negligence attributed to the plaintiff.

• The court determined the plaintiff did not suffer a mild traumatic brain injury but did sustain significant physical and psychological injuries as a result of the accident.

• The plaintiff’s credibility was generally accepted, though some concerns were noted regarding reliability due to overstatements and imprecise language.

• Damages were awarded for non-pecuniary loss, past and future loss of income earning capacity, special damages, and cost of future care, with significant deductions for contingencies and mitigation arguments rejected.

• The plaintiff’s ability to continue in his pre-accident occupation is impaired, and future employment is dependent on continued workplace accommodations.

• The total damages awarded amounted to $560,109.60 plus special damages, significantly less than the plaintiff’s claim but substantially more than the defendants’ proposal.

Facts of the case

Craig Michael Pearson, a physically active glazier, was involved in a motor vehicle accident on October 15, 2018, at the intersection of Carnarvon Street and 6th Street in New Westminster, British Columbia. At the time, he was 28 years old and employed in a physically demanding role. The accident occurred when the defendant, Rima Osseiran, entered the intersection traveling westbound on Carnarvon Street. She testified that she suddenly felt dizzy and could not see because the sun was in her eyes and did not recall what happened after that. The plaintiff was traveling southbound on 6th Street and testified that his traffic light was green as he entered the intersection. The court found that the defendant entered the intersection on a red light, causing the accident.

The plaintiff claimed to have suffered a mild traumatic brain injury, left shoulder injury, soft tissue injuries to the neck and back, post-traumatic headaches, and psychological injuries and symptoms. He stated that his most significant ongoing injuries were the injury to the left shoulder, which may require surgery, his neck injury, and his psychological symptoms. Following the accident, the plaintiff missed about two days of work and continued employment in an accommodated role. He claimed that his injuries would not get better and may get worse, and that he would be forced to leave his employment in the near future.

Discussion of liability

The defendants denied liability for the accident and denied that the plaintiff sustained a mild traumatic brain injury, though they did not dispute that he suffered soft tissue injuries to his neck, back, and left shoulder, or that he suffered emotional symptoms due to the accident. The defendants submitted that the plaintiff failed to mitigate his injuries and was likely to experience improvement in his physical and psychological symptoms once he followed medical advice. They also argued that the plaintiff’s claims of impairment and disability were exaggerated, pointing to minimal missed work, the plaintiff’s ability to work overtime, pass the Red Seal exam, and be promoted to temporary foreman.

The court found the defendants fully liable for the accident. The court accepted the plaintiff’s evidence that he entered the intersection on a green light and found that the defendant Osseiran entered the intersection on a red light, which was a breach of the standard of care and caused the accident. The court found no evidence to support contributory negligence by the plaintiff. The defendant Wehbi was found vicariously liable as the owner of the vehicle.

Assessment of injuries and causation

The court reviewed the medical evidence and expert testimony. The plaintiff did not prove that he sustained a mild traumatic brain injury. The court found that the plaintiff sustained a left shoulder injury (biceps tendinopathy and subacromial bursitis), soft tissue injuries to the neck, upper back, shoulder girdle, and lower back, post-traumatic headaches, and major depression, somatic symptom disorder, and PTSD symptoms (including driving anxiety). The plaintiff’s pre-accident health was found to be excellent except for some sleep issues.

The court found that the plaintiff’s injuries and symptoms had reached a plateau but that there was a real and substantial possibility of improvement if the plaintiff pursued recommended treatments, including further shoulder injections or surgery, continued pain specialist care, headache treatment, and psychiatric counselling and medication.

Impact on employment and mitigation

The plaintiff returned to work shortly after the accident but only in an accommodated role, unable to perform the full physical duties of a glazier. Expert evidence supported that his injuries impaired his earning capacity and made him less competitively employable compared to his cohort that does not require the same level of accommodation. The court found no failure to mitigate on the plaintiff’s part, rejecting the defendants’ arguments that he unreasonably failed to pursue recommended treatments or counselling.

Damages and outcome

The court awarded damages as follows:

• Non-pecuniary damages: $185,000.00

• Past loss of income earning capacity: $399.20 (for two days of missed work)

• Future loss of income earning capacity: $340,000.00

• Special damages: as agreed by the parties

• Cost of future care: $34,710.40

The total damages awarded to the plaintiff amounted to $560,109.60 plus special damages, to be paid jointly and severally by the defendants. If the parties could not agree to costs, a further hearing was provided for. The court’s findings and all awarded amounts are directly taken from the judgment.

Conclusion and ruling

The court found in favor of the plaintiff, awarding him damages for the injuries and losses sustained as a result of the accident. The court’s findings regarding the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s injuries, the likelihood of future improvement, and the legal standards for assessing damages in personal injury cases are all based on the evidence and analysis set out in the judgment. The plaintiff was recognized as the successful party in the litigation, with damages awarded accordingly. The precise amount for special damages was to be determined by agreement or further order of the court.