Serving All of British Columbia
infobc@preszlerlaw.com Call 1-888-404-5167

Laliberte v. Jarma: Does Being a Single Mother Affect a Personal Injury Award?


When it comes to personal injury claims arising from auto accidents in B.C., there is no one-size-fits all formula. A judge will take into account a number of factors related to the victim’s educational, employment, and even family status when determining damages for things like loss of past and future income or pain and suffering. Along those same lines, the defence will attempt to highlight certain aspects of the victim’s life in order to minimize their own financial liability for the accident.

Take this recent decision from B.C. Supreme Court, Laliberte v. Jarma. In this case, a now-21-year-old woman sustained serious injuries in an accident that took place three years earlier, when she was 18. According to the undisputed facts presented at trial, the plaintiff was a passenger in a car where the driver “lost control of the vehicle, went through a fence and over a bump and landed in a field.” The plaintiff subsequently sued both the driver and the owner of the vehicle, who conceded liability for the accident itself.

The defendants also agreed the plaintiff sustained injuries in the accident and deserved compensation. But there was disagreement as to the amount of compensation. A trial was therefore held before Justice Loryl D. Russell of B.C. Supreme Court in Nanaimo in March of this year. On June 14, Justice Russell issued her judgment.

Determining the Plaintiff’s Loss of Past (and Future) Income

Call 1-877-572-1324 to speak with our British Columbia legal intake team for free Book Free Consultation

The plaintiff’s status as a single mother played a significant role in Justice Russell’s determination of damages. The plaintiff was eight months pregnant at the time of the accident in December 2015. Due to the ongoing pain caused by the accident, however, the plaintiff testified she “could not hold her baby or more than five minutes without pain.” For example, the plaintiff could not carry her child upstairs to his nursery or place him in a car seat.

The plaintiff also testified she was afraid to have additional children in the future, as she would need to stop taking her pain medication for the duration of any future pregnancy.

Conversely, the defence pointed to the plaintiff’s pregnancy and single-mother status as proof she did not sustain serious damages with respect to her loss of past and future income. Prior to the accident, the plaintiff worked a number of “short-term, minimum wage jobs,” according to Justice Russell. The plaintiff testified she planned to become a hairdresser or tattoo artist, but she lacks the formal educational training for the former and the ability to physically perform the work required by the latter.

More to the point, the defence argued that due to her pregnancy and another medical condition unrelated to the accident, the plaintiff would not have been able to work full-time after December 2015 for at least a year. As for the plaintiff’s present employment situation, the defence noted that she waited until fall 2018–three years after the accident–to start looking for full-time work of any kind. And given that the plaintiff lacked even a high school education prior to the accident, it was unlikely she would have ever found more than minimum-wage work.

In short, the defence’s position was that the plaintiff chose to become a single mother at the age of 18 rather than pursue additional educational or employment opportunities. As this choice was unrelated to the auto accident, the defendants said they should not be liable for any employment-related losses claimed by the plaintiff.

Justice Russell ruled on these issues as follows:

  • The Court agreed with the defence that between December 2015 and March 2016–the first months after the accident and after the plaintiff gave birth–the plaintiff would not have worked even if the accident never occurred; the plaintiff was therefore entitled to no damages for wage losses for this period.
  • The period between March 2016 and January 2017 was somewhat trickier. The latter date is when the plaintiff started taking medication to manage her chronic, accident-related pain. Prior to this, Justice Russell said it would “not be reasonable to expect that [the plaintiff] would have been able to work during this period.” Even taking into account the plaintiff’s status as a single mother, she was still entitled to some compensation for the loss of income, which the Court calculated at $17,150.
  • From January 2017 until the plaintiff returned to work in the fall of 2018, Justice Russell declined to award any damages for loss of income. By this point, the judge said, the plaintiff was medically capable of returning to work but chose to wait until fall 2018.
  • Going forward, Justice Russell estimated the plaintiff would lose approximately ¾ of a day per week in lost income due to ongoing medical issues stemming from the accident. Based on the assumption the plaintiff will complete her the necessary education to become a hairdresser, the judge said this translated to a loss of future income of $130,000.

Compensating the Plaintiff for Her Childcare-Related Losses

Justice Russell also awarded the plaintiff $100,000 in non-pecuniary damages. In support of this figure, the Court cited the loss of the plaintiff’s “ability to cradle her baby in her arms and to breastfeed without pain” and the potential impact on the plaintiff’s decision to have more children for fear of aggravating her accident-related pain. The judge also noted the pain experienced by the plaintiff when giving birth to her present child was likely “heightened by the pre-existing injury.”

Call Preszler Injury Lawyers in Vancouver Today if You Have Been Seriously Injured in an Auto Accident

A personal injury from a car accident can affect your life in ways you probably cannot imagine unless it happens to you. Even simple everyday tasks like caring for a newborn baby may be significantly more difficult, if not impossible, following a serious accident. If you find yourself in this kind of situation, it is important to seek legal advice from a Vancouver personal injury lawyer with experience in assisting accident victims.

Call Preszler Injury Lawyers today to schedule a free consultation with a member of our legal team.

Source:

https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2019/2019bcsc968/2019bcsc968.html

 

 

 

Connect With Our Legal Team



Schedule a call with our personal injury legal intake team. Our team is available 24/7 so call us now to book your call. Our scheduled intake allows you to tell us details about your accident and gives our legal team an opportunity to review your case and advise you on possible solutions and outcomes. The best part is, if you decide to hire us after this call - you don't pay anything unless we win. We can help clients regardless of where they reside in British Columbia so let us help you get started on your road to recovery.

 

1075 West Georgia Street
Unit 800,
Vancouver, BC
V6E 3C9
Fax: 778-373-8213
Toll Free: 1-877-572-1324
1631 Dickson Avenue
Suite 1100,
Kelowna, BC
V1Y 0B5
Fax: 778-373-8213
Toll Free: 1-877-572-1324
7164 120th Street
Suite 202,
Surrey, BC
V3W 3M8
Fax: 778-373-8213
Toll Free: 1-877-572-1324
5811 Cooney Road
Suite 305 South Tower,
Richmond, BC
V6X 3M1
Fax: 778-373-8213
Toll Free: 1-877-572-1324
4720 Kingsway
Suite 2600,
Burnaby, BC
V6E 3C9
Fax: 778-373-8213
Toll Free: 1-877-572-1324
1321 Blanshard Street
Suite 301,
Victoria, BC
V8W 0B6
Fax: 778-373-8213
Toll Free: 1-877-572-1324
2655 Clearbrook Road
Suite 260,
Abbotsford, BC
V2T 2Y6
Fax: 778-373-8213
Toll Free: 1-877-572-1324
*These are consultation offices that require a booked meeting in advance. Walk-ins are not allowed.

DISCLAIMER: Please be advised that the header image and other images throughout this website may include both lawyer and non-lawyer/paralegal employees of Preszler Injury Lawyers and unrelated third parties. Please note that the purpose of this disclaimer is to ensure that the usage of our spokesperson, John Fraser, or any other non-lawyer/paralegals in our legal marketing is not to be construed in any way as misleading to the public. Any questions regarding the usage of non-lawyers in our legal marketing or otherwise can be directed to management. Please be advised that some of the content on this website may be out of date. None of the content is intended to act as legal advice as each situation is independent and unique and requires individual legal advice from a licensed lawyer or paralegal. For legal advice on your individual situation – we can provide legal guidance after you have contacted our firm and we have established a lawyer-client relationship contractually. Please note that some of the content on this website may be out of date and no longer relevant after May 2021. For additional clarification on legal questions please contact our law firm and book a consultation with a member of our legal team.