Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Liability for the motor vehicle accident was admitted, leaving the quantification of damages as the main issue.

• The extent of the plaintiff’s chronic pain and its impact on his ability to work were central to the assessment of damages.

• The court evaluated the reliability of expert economic evidence regarding past and future loss of earning capacity, finding some assumptions unsupported.

• Claims for cost of future care and future housekeeping were denied due to lack of evidence that such expenses would likely be incurred.

• Testimony from the plaintiff, his wife, colleagues, and medical experts was used to assess the plaintiff’s functional limitations and psychological trauma.

• Damages were awarded for non-pecuniary loss, past and future loss of earning capacity, and special damages, with specific amounts determined based on the evidence.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and accident circumstances

John Edward Meyers was injured in a high-speed, head-on motor vehicle collision on the Malahat Highway, north of Victoria, British Columbia, on June 23, 2016. At the time, Mr. Meyers was 49 years old and self-employed as a hardwood flooring installer. The defendant, Natasha Nicole Hall, admitted liability in negligence for the accident. The trial was limited to the quantification of damages, as the defendant acknowledged Mr. Meyers’ entitlement to non-pecuniary damages for pain and suffering, and to damages for loss of future income-earning capacity. Special damages were agreed.

Nature of injuries and impact on employment

Mr. Meyers suffered soft tissue injuries, significant bruising, multiple abrasions and cuts, and chronic pain, particularly in his hips. He was taken by ambulance to Victoria General Hospital, treated, and released the same day. He was off work for about six weeks, then gradually returned, working reduced hours and at a slower pace. Despite some improvement, he continued to experience pain and stiffness, especially in his hips and lower back, which became chronic. He underwent physiotherapy, received cortisone injections, and managed pain with Advil and cannabis. In 2019, he began subcontracting some work due to his limitations. By the fall of 2021, he concluded he could not continue as a flooring installer and began working in sales with Edgar & Miner Floor Coverings in August 2022 at a reduced salary. His pain improved in the sedentary sales role, but he continued to experience some pain and sleep disturbances.

Evidence and assessment of damages

The court heard testimony from Mr. Meyers, his wife Diane Landega, colleagues including Ms. Van Auken and Mr. Hammon, and expert witnesses. The plaintiff’s economic expert, Mr. Szekely, provided projections for lost income, but the court found the assumptions arbitrary and not fully supported by the evidence, including a lack of business records and speculative income growth projections. The court made its own assessment, finding a 15% impairment in earning capacity after the accident. The court also considered the psychological impact of the accident, including anxiety around driving and disturbed sleep, as well as the loss of recreational activities such as fishing and trail walking.

Claims for future care and special damages

The plaintiff sought damages for cost of future care based on medical recommendations, but the court found no basis for concluding that Mr. Meyers would likely pursue such programs if damages were awarded, especially given his improvement after changing careers. No award was made for future care. Special damages were agreed at $2,220.67, subject to the provisions of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act.

Ruling and outcome

Damages were assessed as follows:
a) Non-pecuniary damages: $105,000
b) Past loss of earning capacity: $147,150 (gross)
c) Future loss of earning capacity: $200,000
d) Special damages: $2,220.67

The total amount awarded was $454,370.67, subject to deductions for income tax and employment insurance premiums as required by the Insurance (Vehicle) Act, with the net amount to be finalized after these deductions are calculated. No award was made for cost of future care. The plaintiff, John Edward Meyers, was the successful party.