Case Studies

Anderson v. Jones, 2003 BCSC 746Anderson v. Jones - settlement amountBeick v. Webb et al, 2002 BCSC 1251Beick v. Webb et al - settlement amountClaiter v. Rose et al, 2004 BCSC 50Claiter v. Rose et al - settlement amountFarshchian v. Spencer, 2002 BCSC 83Farshchian v. Spencer - settlement amountHadland v. Thompson, 2002 BCSC 380Hadland v. Thompson - settlement amountKenny v. Leveson-Gowen et al, (2005), 2005 BCSC 447 (BCSC)Kenny v. Leveson-Gowen et al - Settlement AmountKlippenstein v. Parmar, 2003 BCSC 1138Klippenstein v. Parmar - settlement amountMosher v. Ferrari and Mosher v. Bitoni, 1998 CarswellBC 197 (BCSC)Mosher v. Ferrari and Mosher v. Bitoni - settlement amountRosvold v. Dunlop (2001) 2001 BCCA 1Rosvold v. Dunlop - settlement amountTombe v. Stefulj, 2002 BSCS 154Tombe v. Stefulj - settlement amountZaruk v. Simpson et al, 2003 BCSC 1748Zaruk v. Simpson et al - settlement amount

Get the answers from Jill Franklin,
Best Selling Author of the Auto Accident Suvivor`s Guide

Rosvold v. Dunlop (2001) 2001 BCCA 1

In 1996,  Rosvold, a middle-aged independent roofing contractor, suffered permanent injuries to his back and knees in a motor vehicle accident. Rosvold had been self-employed in physically intensive jobs for most of his life but could not continue to run his own roofing business due to his injuries. The original trial judge concluded Rosvold was entitled to a settlement of $125,000 for the loss of his earning capacity on the basis of the following factors:

• Rosvold was unemployed at the time of trial, and his injuries prevented him from engaging in manual labour in the future
  
  
• Rosvold's attempts to qualify as a financial and insurance products salesman had been unsuccessful, as was an attempt to return to the construction industry as a project manager
  
  
• Rosvold testified he hoped to establish a home-based business manufacturing pet toys and ornamental garden furniture generating $25,000 in annual income.
  
  

The trial judge took a strict mathematical approach to the loss of opportunity claim and awarded him a settlement of $125,000 based on the difference between his pre-accident annual income as a roofer and the income he expected to derive from his proposed business.

But this case went to appeal because Rosvold disagreed with the award regarding his loss of "earning capacity."

What did the Court of Appeal give him as an adjusted settlement?

$60,000?   $125,000?   $300,000?