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

Zaruk v. Simpson et al, 2003 BCSC 1748

On August 19, 1999, Patricia Zaruk’s vehicle was rear ended at an intersection.  The force of the impact was sufficient to push her vehicle across the intersection and break the back of her car seat.  Her vehicle was damaged beyond repair.  Ms. Zaruk claimed to have injured her neck and back.  Liability was admitted on the part of the Defendants and the only issue at trial was damages.  The issue of damages was complicated by the fact that the defense alleged Ms. Zaruk suffered from arthritis in her neck and back that predated the accident.

Ms. Zaruk did not miss any time from her work as a substance abuse counsellor.  She was working approximately 55 hours a week at two different jobs.  She testified that she was able to continue working because of the sedentary and flexible nature of both her jobs.

The medical experts for both sides agreed that she had suffered a soft tissue injury to her neck and back.  However, they held differing opinions as to whether her injuries were attributable to the accident.  Ms. Zaruk saw different physicians on a regular basis in the years following the Accident.  She underwent massage therapy until one of her doctors recommended that she stop.  She also attended physiotherapy as part of the recovery process.  In addition to physical therapies, she took anti-inflammatories and pain medication.  The Plaintiff provided evidence from family members and co-workers about the severe limitations on her physical capabilities since the accident.

Four doctors gave different opinions on the cause of Ms. Zaruk’s injuries.  Three of the doctors agreed that she had suffered a soft tissue injury.  Two of them gave the opinion that her pain and suffering at the time of trial could be attributed to a delayed recovery from the accident.  The defense specialists testified that continuing pain could only be attributable to Ms. Zaruk’s pre-existing arthritis in the affected areas.  X-rays of the Plaintiff’s spine clearly indicated degenerative changes in this area.

What portion of the plaintiff’s ongoing complaints did the court attribute to the motor vehicle accident?

All        None    Some