RESULTS
Judgments and Settlements
Below are some of the trial results and settlements obtained by members of Parsons Corrin LLP.
Somers v. MacLellan, 2023 BCSC 1449 – $6,107,691 trial judgment
Richard Parsons acted for the Plaintiff, Mr. Somers. Mr. Somers suffered a spinal cord injury and paraplegia after being ejected during a roll-over from the passenger seat of a pick-up truck. The defendant claimed at the scene of the accident that Mr. Somers was the driver. Mr. Somers was unconscious and unable to speak up for himself and the police believed the defendant. Following an 18-day trial a judge accepted the evidence of an accident reconstruction expert and bio-mechanical engineer retained by Parsons Corrin LLP, and found the defendant was the driver. Mr. Somers’s damages were assessed as $6,107,691.
Boal v. Parilla, 2022 BCSC 2075 – $2,237,639 trial judgment
Richard Parsons, Greg Hoff, and acted for the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff was an ICBC driving examiner who was injured during a driving examination. The Plaintiff went on to suffer chronic pain and depression. The trial judge awarded the plaintiff damages of $2,237,639. Link here to the Vancouver Sun article regarding the case.
Megaro v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, 2020 BCCA 273 & Megaro v Vanstone, 2018 BCSC 1501 – $1,500,000 trial judgment
Mr. Megaro was a city employee who took a late shift checking sound levels at night clubs, to help a co-worker. On his way home early in the morning another vehicle crossed the road and struck his vehicle head on. The vehicle stopped, the occupants got out, didn’t check on Mr. Megaro changed places and then drove away. They managed to drive the vehicle around the corner before an exploding sound was heard and all the occupants fled into the night. At trial, ICBC defended the case on the basis that the driver had never been identified and the owner of the vehicle was not responsible because he had told police that his keys had been stolen from his jacket at a nightclub while he was dancing with his girlfriend.
The consequences of the injuries were significant. Mr. Megaro was never able to return to work. Having sustained a mTBI he was capable, but far less capable than before the MVA. As a youth, he ‘almost’ made it made it as a professional hockey player. ICBC’s defence of the claim was that since he had been able to play some ‘stick & puck’ hockey with his son, he must be fine. The Judge ultimately found that Mr. Megaro not likely to return to work and needed some care and assistance and her award was over $1,500,000 in damages.
This case went to BC’s Court of Appeal on the issue of the Owner’s responsibility for the Collision, despite his lack of co-operation with the civil litigation process. At the last minute before the trial his then ex-girlfriend testified that she had seen her boyfriend hand keys to someone she didn’t know but thought was a drug dealer, who was never identified. The Court ultimately found the Owner responsible even though the precise identity of the driver at the time of the collision could not be identified.
Orregaard v. Clapci, 2020 BCSC 1726 – $3,301,000 trial judgment
Richard Parsons and Greg Hoff acted for the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff was a promising young woman who planned a career as a lawyer. She delayed her law career to allow her husband to achieve success in his career and raise her young family. The Plaintiff was keen to begin her much-anticipated law career in the fall of 2016 but those plans were derailed by an auto accident in March of 2016 that caused her to suffer chronic daily headaches. The trial judge awarded the Plaintiff $2,750,000 in lost future income earning capacity. The total of her damages was assessed to be $3,301,000.
L.S. v. ICBC et. al. – $2,728,473 jury verdict
Richard acted for the Plaintiff in a four week jury trial. The jury awarded the Plaintiff $2,728,473. This amount was reduced by $369,000, as the jury award of $720,000 for pain and suffering exceeded the inflation adjusted limit on pain and suffering damages, which was $351,000 at the time of trial. After calculation of additional damages for tax-gross up and management fees, the final jury verdict was just over $2,800,000.
The Plaintiff had suffered a traumatic brain injury, and orthopedic injuries, as a result of a motor vehicle accident. The Plaintiff was aged 18 at the time of the accident and had been struck by a vehicle, as a pedestrian. The damage to the Plaintiff’s brain was to his frontal lobes, the region of the brain that regulates “executive function”. Due to his frontal lobe brain injury, the Plaintiff had a change to his personality. He was no longer the thoughtful and caring person he had been before the accident. Rather, he became angry and reclusive. The Plaintiff was of exceptional intelligence, which was fortunately unaffected by the accident. He actually achieved better grades in university following the accident than he had achieved before. However, the jury accepted the changes to his personality significantly affected his ability to earn income throughout his lifetime.
Insurance Corporation of British Columbia v. Ari, 2023 BCCA 331 (“Ari”)
Privacy law is evolving quickly in our digital age and Ari is a significant decision in its evolution. Parsons Corrin LLP acts for the class members in Ari whose privacy was invaded after an employee of ICBC wrongfully accessed the personal information of a number of its customers, linking their motor vehicle license plates to their names and home addresses, and sold that information to persons who then targeted several customers in arson and shooting attacks. Guy Collette was counsel before the BC Court of Appeal in Ari, and he was successful in having the court clarify the analytical framework for a breach of the British Columbia Privacy Act. Notably, the Court agreed with the chambers judge that liability under the Privacy Act can be determined on a class wide basis. The question of whether there is a privacy interest in the disclosed information turns on the defendants’ contract and privacy policy, which is common to all class members. The BCCA also approved of the chambers judge’s decision to consider the defendants’ own characterization of the events as a ‘taking’ or ‘sharing’. ICBC submitted the type of privacy protected by the Privacy Act is particularly intimate information that is at the biographical core of who we are as people. ICBC alleged that by treating contact information as private for the purpose of the Privacy Act, the trial judge had conflated the statute that protects personal information, FOIPPA, with the Privacy Act. The court rejected this submission and held that under the Privacy Act, liability turns on the right to informational privacy and the use of the information and the context. The court explicitly found that a violation in one context might not be a violation in another. This is a determination that can be made on a class wide basis. The information shared with third parties does not have to be identical for each class member. The test is whether class members had an expectation that the information they provided would not be used except for legitimate operational purposes (as agreed to in the privacy policy); and whether the information was accessed and shared/sold to third parties for a purpose that was not authorized and therefore not legitimate. The BCCA also found that the chambers judge was correct to find that general damages can be awarded on a class wide basis. The Court found that the statutory tort is actionable without proof of actual harm and that the law presumes some damages will flow from the mere invasion of privacy. The Court described the assessment of these damages as being the “lowest-common denominator circumstances of the class”, and class members who suffer additional non-pecuniary damages above the baseline can advance their claims in a future process.
Luis v. Marchiori, 2015 BCSC 1 – $1,187,000 trial judgmentL.S. v. ICBC et. al. – $2,728,473 jury verdict
The Plaintiff was an office worker who was 50 years old at the time of trial. She was injured in two motor vehicle accidents and awarded $1,187,000 by a Judge following an eight-day trial. The Plaintiff suffered chronic neck and back pain and headaches. She also suffered depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, and a somatic symptom disorder. The Defendants argued the Plaintiff was not credible. The trial Judge accepted that the Plaintiff was disabled from work as a result of the injuries she sustained in the accidents and awarded her $616,000 for past and future lost work capacity. The trial Judge awarded the Plaintiff $400,000 for future care. The trial Judge awarded the Plaintiff $120,000 to help her cope with her pain and suffering.
Gabor v. Boilard, 2015 BCSC 1724 – $1,000,000 trial judgment
The Court’s statement, “The experts agreed that no other area of medicine is as controversial as mild traumatic brain injury [296]” described the challenges in proving the loss for plaintiff Lana Gabor. Ms. Gabor was 29 at the time of her relatively minor collision. She did not attend hospital, just called her father to pick her up after the accident. While he observed her to be confused, he took her home expecting her to recovery shortly. That didn’t happen. The trial, years later focused on the consequences the MTBI, chronic pain and psychological consequences of her injuries. Ms. Gabor claimed that the injuries sustained were severe enough to warrant substantial compensation for damage to her career as an artist and Art professor. The seeming listlessness of the plaintiff post injury was put forward by the defendants as a challenge to her credibility. Her medical history was used to suggest alternate explanations for her career failures post MVA, despite her having completed her Masters’ thesis just days before the MVA. The grueling evidence tackled a range of issues around Ms. Gabor’s mental and professional state prior to and subsequent to the accident. In the end, the judge found that her injuries were a result of the accident, that “the whirlpool of symptoms caused by the Accident has substantially and detrimentally affected the quality and enjoyment of Ms. Gabor’s life and the lives of those she loves [576]”. Multiple witnesses from Emily Carr confirmed all artists are ‘not starving’ and that based on her body of work pre-MVA and completion of a masters her future career path was bright, but the impact on her career was significant. The Judge’s final court award was over $1,000,000 reflecting the significant impact on her earning capacity.
Paur v. Providence Health Care, 2015 BCSC 1695 affirmed 2017 BCCA 171- $4,000,000 trial judgment
Michael Jason Paur, tragically hung himself in a bathroom of St Paul’s Hospital, British Columbia, he was found, cut down and revived but sustained a severe brain injury and needed to reside in assisted living as a result of his injuries. The nurses employed by the hospital were responsible for Paur’s care at the time of the incident. They were found negligent on the basis that the incident could have been avoided with better supervision, and the consideration of the design of the institution utilizing ligature proof ceilings. The hospital had no policies or protocol in place to ensure patients were not unmonitored and the nurses were found to be negligent for having ‘lost track’ of the patient.
Mr Paur had clear indications of being a suicide risk and had been certified under the Metal Health Act, for having suicidal thoughts, on admission to the hospital. When found, he had been hanging for some five to ten minutes, in a locked bathroom in a ward, which required strict supervision and observation. These decisions were taken to BC’s Court of Appeal and the decision on liability was upheld.
Following a very long hospital recovery Mr. Paur was able to reside semi- independently within the Cheshire home community. The damages award had to consider the costs of caring for him using the ‘total lifestyle’ approach which can be utilized when an individuals life is altered so much that they can not return to living in the way they did before the incident. In Mr. Paur’s case that meant that instead of living on his home and paying his own way with glazier or other work, he had to receive the supports of the Cheshire home staff or have a system of supervision built around him in his own apartment. This methodology was originally utilized in two of the three Supreme Court of Canada decisions that personal injuries call “the trilogy” and has been subsequently utilized for situations of catastrophic injury such as Mr. Paur or the MacEachern decision discussed above. In this instance the present value of this capital loss was more than $4,000,000.
Hogstead v. Spiers, 2013 BCCA 524 – $1,000,000+ trial judgment
A car accident can change the course of your life, and the sad truth is that in a moment, the slightest angle, or movement can make all the difference. William Hogstead, suffered a severe head injury when his small pickup and a tractor trailer collided head on, on a remote stretch of Highway 16 that runs between Prince George and Prince Rupert. The injury was so significant that Mr. Hogstead could not recall what occurred in the collision.
The matter went to trial and appeal. Two accident reconstruction experts and two different reconstructions made this case complicated but ultimately the Court concluded that both vehicles each had one wheel on the centre line when they hit each other. ICBC denied liability and said that Mr. Hogstead had been told not to drive after being administered sedating medication following a routine CT exam. The experienced truck driver swore that Mr. Hogstead travelled from the shoulder, across his lane, and into the oncoming lane. The plaintiff presented evidence that the truck driver had just passed a vehicle and was returning to his own lane. Unfortunately, this evidence came from a local young man, badly burned, who was on his way to treatment at a drug recovery centre. Mr Hogstead’s pickup was smashed to pieces, All that was left was the gouge, from his pickup being forced into the roadway.
The Court of Appeal confirmed the liability split Mr. Hogstead received more than $1,000,000, many times more than he had been offered initially, as compensation to hire the care needed to assist for the remainder of his life.
Perez-Alarcon v. Lee, 2013 BCSC 408- $2,000,000 trial judgment
Mr. Alarcon had consumed a significant amount of alcohol prior to being struck by a speeding car while crossing Clark street in an “unmarked” crosswalk. He was thrown some 24 meters and suffered a severe brain injury. ICBC unsuccessfully defended the driver attempting to blame the pedestrian citing his alcohol levels arguing he should have been able to get out of the way. Justice S. Griffin did not agree and found the driver 100% responsible for the collision and Mr. Alarcon’s injuries. She found that the driver was simply not paying the proper attention and the plaintiff, while impaired was walking. Following trial, settlement at the policy limits of $2,000,000 occurred.
Clost v. Relkie, 2012 BCSC 1393 – $1,500,000+ trial judgment
In Clost v. Relkie the Plaintiff was involved in a head on Collision on the highway between Gibson’s and Sechelt. She sustained a severe traumatic brain injury and multiple orthopedic injuries when Mr. Relkie’s vehicle crossed the highway on a curve. She only survived the collision described by the trial judge as “a shocking scene of mayhem” because an air ambulance happened to be on route to Sechelt hospital. These disabled her working as a hospital lab technician or as a hairdresser her second job. The Plaintiff’s limitations were profound enough that a Committee, or substitute decision maker was appointed for her as her judgment was impaired. Her friend of 50 years stepped in to serve as committee, even though Ms. Clost made a remarkable recovery and was able to gain a fair level of independence in her daily life in Gibson’s. While Ms. Clost was able to travel to town, do her shopping, cook, bake and use a computer she was vulnerable.
The Court’s award was over $1,500,000 to make up for her last few years of earnings as a lab tech and provide care as she declined. The plaintiff suffered a severe injury but made a remarkable recovery to the time of trial. The court heard evidence that she actually returned to hairdressing. A prominent local citizen gave evidence that she had returned to Ms. Clost, a fact the defence said pointed to complete recovery. In fact, the witness testified that the post MVA haircuts were ‘awful’, but it was just hair, and purpose was to support Ms. Clost’s psychological well being. In this case, the Court was forced to wrestle with the challenging consideration of decline following injury. A geriatric psychiatrist testified regarding the possibilities of decline in future, despite the rosy recovery that had occurred to the time of trial. Predicting the long term consequences of a specific injury for a specific individual is one of the challenges of presenting injury evidence in a court setting.
Harrington v. Sangha, 2011 BCSC 1035 – $1,201,793 trial judgment
Guy and Richard acted for the Plaintiff who was injured when she hit a jack knifed semi trailer as she was driving towards Quesnel, British Columbia. ICBC argued that the Plaintiff was partially to blame for the accident for failing to avoid the jack knifed trailer when she encountered it coming towards her in her own lane. ICBC also contested the nature and extent of the Plaintiff’s brain injury and brachial plexus injury. After a four week trial ICBC’s argument that the Plaintiff was partly to blame for the accident failed and the 45 year old Plaintiff, who had been a casino worker before the accident, was awarded $1,080,465.00 plus tax gross-up and management fees. After tax gross-up and mamangement fees and deductions pursuant to section 83 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act the final entered order from trial awarded damages to the Plaintiff in the amount of $1,201,793 plus court costs and the necessary expenses incurred to prove the case. The Judgment is also notable because the trial Judge refused to deduct fair pharmacare benefits from the Plaintiff’s award for future medication costs as was submitted by ICBC.
Shapiro v. Dailey, 2010 BCSC 770 – $1,427,792 trial judgment
Richard acted for the plaintiff who was turning left at the corner of Dundas Street and Nanaimo Street in Vancouver when she was hit by a car driven by a drunk driver. The plaintiff suffered soft tissue injuries in the accident and went on to develop complex chronic pain. Complex chronic pain is a devastating condition that arises when a person’s nervous system becomes sensitized following trauma. After hearing two weeks of expert and lay evidence regarding the causes of complex chronic pain, and its devastating effects, the Court awarded the plaintiff over $1.4 million to compensate her for her injuries. ICBC appealed the judgment. The judgment was upheld in a unanimous decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal.
MacEachern v. Rennie, 2010 BCSC 625 (multiple decisions) – $6,500,000 trial judgment
Ms. MacEachern was struck by a CN owned Tractor Trailer while walking along the road in Surrey. This single unfortunate event led to the longest civil trials for a personal injury plaintiff in BC history, over 100 trial days. Over 100 court days spans almost one year, and there are over ten interlocutory (along the way) decisions issued by the Trial Judge. The primary issues were the location of the plaintiff at the time of the Collision and what contributed to it, complicated by multiple reconstructions and parties. One sad aspect of the defence of the case was suggestion that Ms. MacEachern was not worthy of damages because this very young woman was homeless and walking to collect her methadone treatment at the time she was struck. Following injury, even though she required almost 24 hour care, the excellent support provided by her family and care providers meant that, statistically, her life expectancy, in years, had increased following the collision. The plaintiff’s argument that she needed care assistance for her life expectancy, and that, though homeless at time, it was not sufficient to give her needed health treatment and supports in her tent were accepted.
The matter was resolved while awaiting a hearing at the Court of Appeal. The judgement had awarded more than $6,500,000.
The decision reinforced the need to make the provision of proper care a primary consideration in cases of lifechanging injury. The Court utilized the total lifestyle approach to assess the plaintiff’s damages. In other places on our website you can find many of the important interlocutory decisions and even a part of the “day in the life” video shown to the court because the plaintiff was unable to testify.
Kahlon v. Vancouver Coastal Health Authority, 2009 BCSC 922 – $5,300,000 trial judgment
Mr. Shawn Kahlon was rendered quadriplegic and unable to speak just after obtaining his first teaching job and only 7 months following his wedding. The course of events that lead to this was tragic. He went to the doctor complaining of low back pain. His physician told him that it was likely disc related; a benign condition that would recover with time and exercise. However, he had a CT scan of his lumbar spine that revealed significant problems and the radiologist asked the hospital staff to contact the plaintiff and have him return for an additional CT scan with contrast. The plaintiff did not return for that scan and subsequently became seriously ill following a spinal meningitis infection leading to a brain injury. It was unclear if the plaintiff did not receive the message or if he did not return for the follow-up CT with contrast because he did not want dye injected into his body. The matter was complicated by the unrelated death of his family physician and the plaintiff’s inability to testify. The court noted that a patient’s understanding of his condition and of the potential risks of not following up were relevant contextual factors to be considered and found the in determining his contribution to the injury, and assessed the plaintiff’s contributory negligence at 30%.
Despite her young age, his new bride Michelle, took on the role of caregiver and devoted her life to providing his needed care. As counsel, one of the most upsetting aspects of this case was to see it reported as front page news declaring the award of $5.3 Million dollars as if Mr. Kahlon had won a lottery.
Dyke v. British Columbia Amateur Softball Assn. , 2008 BCCA 3 – Liability trial judgment
In Dyke v. British Columbia Amateur Softball Assn, 2005 BCSC 1422; aff’d 2008 BCCA 3, the plaintiff was scorekeeping a softball game while standing in the spectator area beside the covered dugout at a facility known as Softball City. Despite being behind a fence, the plaintiff was struck on the head by a foul ball and later required surgery to alleviate blood build up on the brain. The plaintiff testified that she was standing beside the dugout at the time of her injury because the covered dugout was flooded with water.
The Court noted that an inherent risk associated with an activity does not negate the duty of an “occupier” but alters the standard of care. This is largely determined by reference to the industry standard. In deciding this matter, the Court concluded that
…the risk to which the plaintiff was exposed was not unreasonably high. Indeed, had a spectator been hit while standing in the exact same spot, the risk would have been deemed reasonable, as the protective fencing in the area had met industry and municipal standards. Thus, the risk of being struck while in that location was inherent to the sport and the spectator would bear the risk of being struck.
Aberdeen v. Township of Langley, et al., 2007 BCSC 993 – $5,647,773 trial judgment
Richard acted for the plaintiff who suffered a spinal cord injury and a brain injury in an accident after he was forced off the road on his bicycle. The plaintiff was riding down a hill in Langley when a vehicle approaching in the opposite direction took a corner wide and came over a solid double line. The plaintiff moved to the right to avoid the vehicle and encountered a guard rail with a gap in it. The gap had been created by Langley years earlier during road construction. The plaintiff went through the gap and over a cliff. The defendants took the position that the plaintiff was responsible for the accident because he was travelling faster than the posted advisory speed of 30 kilometres per hour. The court found the driver of the vehicle was 25% at fault, Langley was 75% at fault, and the plaintiff was not to blame at all. The Court awarded the plaintiff over $5.6 million in damages.
The case was appealed. The BC Court of Appeal upheld the damage award.
Doucette v. Wee Watch Day Care Systems Inc., 2006 BCCA 262
On November 19, 2001, Jade Doucette (a 16 month old infant) was reported to suffer a seizure, which in turn was found to be a skull fracture and brain injury suffered while she was in the care of an in home childcare worker. The Vancouver Police investigated the injury as a ‘shaken baby’ type assault but no charges were ultimately brought. The civil law suit proceeded to trial to prove that Jade had been the victim of an assault and for damages from the care worker and her employer relating to their failure to properly screen, train and supervise the care worker. Jade’s civil case was resolved after 8 days of trial for an undisclosed amount.
Statistical research shows that the most common perpetrator of a ‘shaken baby assault’ is a step mother or father. Other common features are that the infant is alone in the care of the adult at the time of the injury. As such, in the rare situations where an infant is injured at a day care, they are at a greater statistical risk at a day care operated as an ‘in home’ setting as opposed to a formalized daycare where there are multiple care givers present.
Following the resolution of the claim for damages the matter continued to the Supreme Court of Canada for determination of an important legal question. Could the police obtain the otherwise confidential information which was required to be disclosed in the civil litigation? The Attorney General of BC sought to compel the production of discovery transcripts and other evidence collected under the protection of the ‘implied undertaking of confidentiality’ created in civil litigation. The Supreme Court of Canada declined to order production in Juman v. Doucette 2008 SCC 8.
Settlements
$9.2 Million multi defendant settlement following quadriplegia injury
The failure of a negligently maintained balcony resulted in our client, a 19-year-old college student, falling 15 feet and tragically receiving injuries that resulted in life long spastic quadriplegia. The balcony was part of the public area of a rental apartment building. To succeed, we had to untangle years of neglect and the failures in responsibility from the owners, contractors, consultant engineers & architects to show multi-party negligence. Legal duties of inspection and repair from the parties and local government were also involved. Meanwhile, our client and his family spent years in a public hospital care setting struggling to ensure that our client received reasonable attention and rehabilitation to improve his functionality. Ultimately, the more than $9,000,000 settlement could create a fund that allowed the family to hire caregivers and set up housing that could adequately provide the almost hospital like care that would be needed for the remainder of our client’s life.
$1.5 Million USD settlement following Seattle bar assault
Our Canadian client was a Seahawks’ season ticket holder who enjoyed the football games as special occasions with his family. On this occasion, after attending a game with his wife and daughter he stopped at a local piano bar he had been told about. There he was assaulted by the bouncer for no reason that could ever be discerned. Taken to hospital, an MRI visualized a small brain bleed and mTBI. After the initial recovery, he would appear ‘fully recovered’ to most who interacted with him briefly. However, a close examination by our firm showed that the plaintiff had lost some of his organizational skills and had changes in his mood as well as fatigue. These supposedly ‘mild’ consequences of a Traumatic Brain Injury resulted in ‘major’ impacts on his ability to run his previously successful small business in the Fraser Valley. Ultimately, the defendant’s insurer settled, just prior to trial.
Settled: for 20 times the amount recommended by the previous Law Firm
A young man sustained a severe brain injury at the age of 13. He was struck by a car while bike riding on a road near his home in a rural BC community. Shortly after the collision, his parents sought legal advice from a local law firm. They were told by the lawyer that this was a high-risk case that they should not pursue – if won, the case would only be worth around $30,000 and if lost, they could potentially lose their home. Additionally, the parents were told by ICBC that their son was 100% responsible for the collision. They decided not to make a claim.
At the age of 19, the young man coincidentally met another young person with a brain injury and learned about our firm. We met him and his family and told them that his serious injuries could be worth a great deal more than what was originally estimated by the first lawyer his parents had talked to. We resolved the case before trial for more than 20 times the original recommendation.
Settled: for 20 times the amount recommended by the previous Law Firm
A middle-aged rising star at a national bank was struck on his bike at 6;00 am as he was commuting to work in his suit. He was told that he had driven through the red light by ICBC but approached the big firm that most often worked with his bank. Following their investigation they recommended that he resolve his case for $50,000 given the risk of loss and exposure to costs. He consulted our firm initially to ‘sue his employer’ because they would not let him return to work. After a substantial work up of both the liability and damages case we explained to the insurer how much the case could be worth and visually diagramed the many witnesses who saw the ‘crazy cyclist in the suit’ in the intersection asked to ICBC to explain – why didn’t the defendant? We resolved the case just before trial for more than 20 times the original recommendation.
$5,000,000 for a teenager who became a quadriplegic following a serious collision in the BC Interior (Okanagan).
$4,000,000 + Our teenage client was struck while crossing a road while on a school rugby trip in the UK. He was served underage at a bar and sustained a severe frontal lobe injury that altered his ability to work and live independently. We worked for many years setting up a local rehab program to enhance our client’s life and at the same time and managed the UK litigation with local counsel.
$4,000,000 + Ms. Mitchell was tragically rendered quadriplegic in a single vehicle rollover collision while returning from a family wedding. The collision took the life of her already quadriplegic father and another passenger. The modified vehicle left the road and rolled. Ms. Mitchell had a long and difficult course at the Vancouver General Hospital and at the GF Strong Rehab Centre. She was only able to leave the hospital when our firm arranged for a house to be purchased and a care regime set up for her. Although the defense argued vigorously that Ms. Mitchell needed little care, she was provided with a significant award, which after allowable additions amounted to over $4 million plus costs. (Mitchell v. We Care 2004 BCSC 902)
$4,000,000 + our client was mistakenly shot at a pheasant hunt in rural BC. The x-ray and CT showed the tragedy of brain matter punctuated with shot throughout the frontal cortex. The consequences on this young female entrepreneur were mostly behavioural. Recently emigrated this young woman had already started to build a significant business. Following injury she was impulsive, unfocused and easily taken advantage of. Not only did she lose her business venture she required significant assistance and a financial guardian.
$2,500,000: For a woman who sustained facial smash injuries and a severe traumatic brain injury when a driver struck a moose on the highway west of Prince George.
$2,500,000: Our client was a young man who was the passenger in a 2 vehicle MVA. The TBI injury resulted in limited loss of initiative, impairments and his vocational and recreational pursuits. His care program required someone to go to him daily to help him take part in activities.
$2,900,000: A young adult leaving a restaurant with friends sustained a severe brain injury when the vehicle in which he was a backseat passenger struck a cement barrier. Though a young adult, the client’s parents completely changed their lives devoting themselves to their son. The compensation allowed him to have special accommodation, equipment and care long after his parents were unable to do so.
$2,000,000 + for a woman injured in a single vehicle rollover accident on ice in the Cariboo Region of BC. Her previous lawyer was unaware that there was anything seriously wrong with her. Though her family lived far away, we worked with them and with appropriate professionals to prove that her memory and executive function deficits affected her ability to care for herself.
$2,000,000 (policy limits) for an older man who suffered quadriplegia (tetraplegia) when the vehicle, in which he was travelling a passenger, was struck in an intersection in the Fraser Valley.
Policy limits for our client, a left turning vehicle. Our client was the servient driver (did not have the right of way) turning left when struck by the oncoming vehicle. We were able to show, based on the speed that the dominant driver (straight through with the right of way) was travelling that the left turning driver acted appropriately, in the belief that is was safe to turn because the other car was so far away.
$1,000,000: Our client’s disability insurer refused to honour his insurance plan after he became quadriplegic in a fall. An out of court settlement resulted in the full payment of his $1 million policy after his insurer tried to argue he was too late in reporting his claim.
$1,000,000: For a child who fell from an improperly designed balcony at a very young age. The boy did complete high school but was not expected to achieve as he would have otherwise. He received the limits of the insurance policy.
$1,000,000: For a young boy injured by an errant ball from a sports game. The injury interfered with his schooling and though technically a mild traumatic brain injury, the injury has life long impacts.
$1,000,000 (policy limits): For an infant who fell down a laundry chute and struck the cement floor below. Visiting a friends home this toddler managed to fall down a laundry chute designed and constructed by the homeowner. The home owner’s policy of insurance responded. The litigation was resolved long before the young boy even knew that about the existence of the law suit.
We are ready to help you
After an accident the first priority is to help you or loved on get on the path to recovery, however, don’t delay calling us so that we may ensure that critical evidence is gathered and legal limitations on your claim do not expire.
Call us or fill out the contact form below.
Fill out the contact form below and we will contact you within 24 hours
Do I have a case?
Fill out the form to book your FREE case evaluation
