[ad_1]
Whereas the comparative strategy in assessing a jury’s harm award is firmly established in jurisprudence, the BC Court docket of Attraction discovered it had minimal worth in a private harm case with distinctive circumstances during which the courtroom diminished the award.
In McCliggot v. Elliott, 2022 BCCA 315, Patricia Daybreak Elliott was driving her minivan in Victoria, BC when it was hit by a lumber truck owned by Slegg Development Supplies. Elliott sustained gentle tissue accidents. She was compelled to shut her daycare enterprise following the accident as a result of her accidents prevented her from performing the bodily exercise concerned in caring for younger youngsters. Her accidents additionally affected her housekeeping, leisure, and different actions. She additional claimed that she had not been as current for her three youngsters as she was earlier than the accident.
A jury awarded Elliott $463,385.54 in damages, together with $350,000 for non-pecuniary harm. The defendants challenged this verdict, asking the enchantment courtroom to re-assess the award of non-pecuniary harm, previous earnings loss, and value of future care. They argued that the decide offered the jury with an abbreviated and insufficient cost on the way to assess non-pecuniary damages. In addition they stated that the jury’s assessments had been wholly faulty and out of proportion as a result of it fell considerably past the higher vary of awards set by judges in the identical class of circumstances.
[ad_2]
Source link