She was delivering a loaf of home-baked bread and crossing at an intersection when a car hit her
In a recent personal injury case, the BC Supreme Court awarded $602,685 in damages to a pedestrian who was severely injured in a crosswalk accident.
In Oliver v Loewen, 2024 BCSC 604, Billie-Jo Oliver was struck by a vehicle in a marked crosswalk in Penticton, leading to extensive injuries and a lengthy legal battle over the quantum of damages. She was going to deliver a loaf of home-baked bread to a friend and was crossing at the intersection of Wade Avenue and Ellis Street in Penticton when the accident occurred.
Oliver aged 46 at the time of the accident and 51 at trial, reported suffering from persistent headaches and hip, neck, shoulder, and back pain, which have profoundly impacted her daily activities and work life.
Most Read
Despite admitting liability, the defendant contested the severity of the symptoms and their impact on Oliver's capabilities, suggesting a significantly lower compensation range of $90,000 to $190,000.
The court's detailed judgment follows extensive testimonies from multiple witnesses, including Oliver's family, friends, employer, and medical experts. These testimonies demonstrated Oliver’s life before and after the accident, highlighting her once vibrant and active lifestyle which has since been curtailed due to ongoing physical and cognitive challenges.
Expert testimonies included insights from Dr. Donald Cameron, a neurologist who affirmed the presence of post-traumatic brain injury symptoms, and Dr. Raymond Ancill, a psychiatrist who corroborated the psychological impacts linked to the physical injuries sustained. The court also considered a report from Dr. Dhineskumar Sivananthan, a physical medicine and rehabilitation specialist, which further substantiated the claims of sustained physical injuries.
In deciding the award, the Supreme Court reviewed the credibility of all witnesses, the nature and extent of Oliver’s injuries, and the impact on her future earning capacity and need for future care. While the defence highlighted discrepancies in Oliver’s testimonies regarding her work and retirement plans, the court found her to be a reliable and forthright witness, suffering genuine and significant setbacks from her injuries.
The court noted that non-pecuniary damages are awarded to compensate the plaintiff for pain, suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and loss of amenities. The compensation awarded should be fair to all parties. Fairness is measured against awards made in comparable cases, although such cases serve only as a rough guide.
The court found that as a result of the accident, Oliver has been left with residual pain and stiffness that impacts her daily. She continues to have trouble sleeping. She has been able to work full-time, but her future is uncertain. She has lost the ability to enjoy most of the recreational activities she engaged in and thrived in. Her relationships have suffered. She continues to struggle with some minor cognitive issues. Considering these circumstances, the court awarded her $185,000 for non-pecuniary damages.
Furthermore, the court found potential events that could give rise to a loss, namely that the plaintiff’s injuries would prevent her from achieving a promotion to a management position. The court is satisfied that there is a real and substantial possibility that this loss will cause the plaintiff pecuniary loss in the future. As a result, the court also awarded her $350,000 for loss of future earning capacity, reflecting the probable early retirement due to her diminished physical capabilities, and $67,685 for future care costs, which include medical treatments and necessary modifications to her home and workplace.
