|
Beick v. Webb et al, 2002 BCSC 1251
On May 16, 2000, Mr. Beick’s vehicle was rear-ended by a five ton Ryder Rental truck driven by the defendant, Mr. Webb. Liability was admitted by the Defendant and the only issue at trial was the extent of damages suffered by the Plaintiff.
A few months prior to the accident, the Plaintiff and his wife had purchased a coffee shop business and were they struggling to make it a profitable venture. Mr. Beick ran the day to day operations of the coffee shop, even after the accident.
Mr. Beick alleged that soft tissue injuries mainly to the right side of his body had resulted in chronic pain and depression. It was his evidence that he sustained permanent disability and was unable to work without successful treatment, and even with such treatment, he would always be left with a permanent partial earning disability. The Defendants’ position was that the Plaintiff suffered from a “garden variety” whiplash and that any complaints beyond the reasonable period for recovery from that type of injury were not attributable to the accident.
Mr. Beick was prescribed Tylenol #3 and anti-depressants. He also underwent physiotherapy, massage therapy, and cortisone injection. One of his treating physicians testified that the Plaintiff suffered from chronic pain disorder. The other physician who testified on behalf of the Plaintiff stated that he suffered from depression as a result of the accident. The defence relied on the evidence of their psychiatrist who disagreed that the Plaintiff suffered from any psychological problems as a result of the accident.
The court found numerous instances of exaggeration and contradiction in the evidence provided by the Plaintiff with respect to his work history, receipt of social assistance and the amount of medication he had taken to treat his accident injuries. It was held that the Plaintiff had exaggerated the amount of pain and anti-depressant medication he was taking in order to create a more dire impression of his condition in the eyes of the medical experts. The judge made the following comment which summarizes his view of the Plaintiff’s evidence:
"Mr. Beick’s condition is one where there are few objective indicators to support his claim. Thus, it is necessary to have confidence that the evidence provided by the Plaintiff is accurate and forthright. My overall assessment of the evidence in support of the action is that it is unsatisfactory.”
What did the judge award Mr. Beick for his non-pecuniary (pain and suffering) damages?
$5,000? $15,000? $30,000? |
