Trial judge overlooked expert economic evidence and underestimated future earnings: court
The British Columbia Court of Appeal increased a woman's damages for future loss of earning capacity after finding that the trial judge did not correctly consider expert economic evidence and underestimated her future earnings.
The woman was injured in a rear-end collision near Victoria, BC while slowing at an intersection. She was 27 years old and working in a fast-paced role in media and public relations. She had been steadily advancing in her career and planned to pursue further education at a local university.
Before the accident, she led an active lifestyle, working multiple jobs and engaging in community events. She occasionally experienced migraines but had no significant health issues. Following the collision, she suffered from persistent headaches, neck pain, and cognitive difficulties that affected her ability to work in a busy environment. Although she attempted to return to her job in a reduced capacity, she eventually left in 2017 due to ongoing health challenges and an increased commute after relocating. Despite her efforts, she secured part-time work but could not increase her hours.
At trial, the court awarded a total of $754,914.10, which included $125,000 for non-pecuniary damages, $130,000 for past income loss, and $463,289 for future loss of earning capacity. The trial judge acknowledged that the woman's injuries prevented her from working full-time in her previous field. However, the court calculated her future income loss based on a fixed annual shortfall of $16,749—comparing her post-accident earnings to her 2017 salary rather than considering statistical projections.
On appeal, the woman argued that the trial judge had disregarded expert economic evidence, including a report analyzing average earnings for professionals in her field. She contended that the judge erred in rejecting statistical data and underestimating her projected future earnings had she not been injured.
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had made several material errors. It determined that he had incorrectly dismissed statistical earnings data's relevance and miscalculated the woman's potential earnings by assuming they would remain static over time. The appellate court emphasized that economic evidence is crucial in assessing future income loss.
Reassessing the damages, the Court of Appeal considered the woman's pre-accident career trajectory and earning potential had she not been injured. It concluded that a fair and reasonable award for her future loss of earning capacity was $1,000,000, more than double the original amount granted at trial.
The court's ruling underscored the role of expert economic evidence in personal injury cases and clarified the proper approach to assessing future loss of earning capacity. The decision ensured that compensation reflects a plaintiff's current losses and their realistic long-term earning potential.
