The Rab Test for Loss of Earning Capacity Claims
Holness and Small Law Group Blog » Personal Injury Appeals
by Renn Holness
4d ago
In this personal injury appeal, the Court of Appeal addressed the quantum of damages for past and future loss of income arising from a motor vehicle accident (Tigas v. Close, 2024 BCCA 223). The injury claimant alleged a loss of over $3 million at trial and was only awarded under $500,000. The appellants contested the trial judge’s application of the Rab v. Prescott  test, arguing that it was not properly employed to evaluate whether there was a real and substantial possibility of a loss of earning capacity and the likelihood and extent of such loss. The injury claimant alleged the trial ..read more
Visit website
Exaggerated ICBC Injury Claim Leads to Case Dismissal
Holness and Small Law Group Blog » Personal Injury Appeals
by Renn Holness
2w ago
The primary issue in this personal injury appeal was the trial judge’s finding of causation for damages awarded to the claimant following a motor vehicle accident. The case was heard before the Honourable Justices Stromberg-Stein, Voith, and Skolrood. The appellants sought to overturn the damages awarded, arguing that the trial judge made a palpable and overriding error by awarding damages in the absence of proof of causation. Trial Court Findings The trial court found the injury claimant had suffered exacerbations of pre-existing physical injuries and new psychological injuries due to the acc ..read more
Visit website
Nursing Staff Negligent for Failing to Provide One‑to‑One Supervision
Holness and Small Law Group Blog » Personal Injury Appeals
by Renn Holness
4M ago
In this medical malpractice case the Vancouver General Hospital appealed a decision finding them negligent in failing to assign one-on-one supervision to an elderly patient (Vancouver General Hospital v. Zheng,2024 BCCA 42). The patient subsequently fell and broke his hip. The appeal focused on whether the trial judge erred in concluding that the standard of care required one-on-one supervision based on the patient’s known risk factors. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the judge’s personal injury decision was not in error. The plaintiff was an 83-year-old patient admitted ..read more
Visit website
ICBC Cannot Deduct Loss of Housekeeping Capacity
Holness and Small Law Group Blog » Personal Injury Appeals
by Renn Holness
1y ago
ICBC homemaking benefits versus loss of housekeeping capacity ICBC, as a government auto monopoly, has special legal rights. These rights allow ICBC to deduct benefits they pay from any court award against a guilty driver. This means that car accident victims obtaining court awards against at fault drivers must deduct ICBC benefits from their money award. This includes benefits for physical therapy, homecare, homemaking and  loss of income. In a stunning decision, however, the Court of Appeal refused to deduct a $40,000 award for loss of housekeeping capacity. This despite ICBC agreeing t ..read more
Visit website
Future ICBC Injury Benefit Deductions Clarified on Appeal
Holness and Small Law Group Blog » Personal Injury Appeals
by Renn Holness
1y ago
  In this ICBC personal injury appeal, ICBC appealed the amount of reductions made for future ICBC benefits. ICBC argued successfully that the contingency reduction was fatally speculative. There was no evidence of a risk that the claimant would not receive the benefits to which she was entitled.(Watson v. Fatin,2023 BCCA 82) Personal Injury Trial Decision The lawsuit arose from a car accident near Sproat Lake on Vancouver Island. At the time, the plaintiff  was riding as a passenger in a minivan driven by her husband. He attempted to make a left turn off the highway when the left re ..read more
Visit website
ICBC Minor Damage Defence Fails
Holness and Small Law Group Blog » Personal Injury Appeals
by Renn Holness
1y ago
This injury claim first denied based on minor vehicle damage has been overturned by the Court of Appeal. The conclusion that minor car damage means no injury has therefore been debunked by our highest court. In a car accident, just because there is minor car damage does not mean there is no injury. Also, common sense does not dictate that the smaller the impact, the greater probability of no injury. As a result, the Court of Appeal makes clear: [30]  This is not to say that the severity of impact cannot be a relevant factor in assessing evidence of injury, but it is one factor, whic ..read more
Visit website

Follow Holness and Small Law Group Blog » Personal Injury Appeals on FeedSpot

Continue with Google
Continue with Apple
OR