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 - settlement amount

Total award: $300,000

The Court of Appeal noted that an award for loss of earning capacity is intended to recognize a Plaintiff's ability to earn income in the future. That potential is a capital asset that should be compensated if affected by the accident. Further, such an award is based on speculation as opposed to mathematical analysis. In this respect, "what may have happened" only has to be probable instead of likely or certain. In this case, the original trial judge should have taken note of the following factors:

• Rosvold had only a grade nine education
  
  
• Vocational testing indicated he was not well suited to "desk jobs"
  
  
• Rosvold's past business experience did not indicate a strong business sense.
  
  

With these additional facts in mind, it was probable that Rosvold's proposed business might have failed or not generated sufficient income for him to live on. The Court of Appeal concluded that the accident had rendered Rosvold less capable of earning income from all types of employment, made him less attractive as a business partner and unable to take advantage of business opportunities that might otherwise have been available to him, and therefore less valuable to himself as a person capable of earning income in a competitive labour market. On this basis, Rosvold was entitled to $300,000 for the loss of earning capacity.