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 - settlement amount

To answer this question, the court relied heavily on the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Athey v. Leonati, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 458.  The fundamental principle arising from the Athey case is that it is not necessary for a plaintiff to prove that the motor vehicle accident is the sole cause of her symptoms.  The Supreme Court recognized that most injuries are the result of a complex series of causes.  Therefore, it is not necessary for the plaintiff to establish with “scientific precision” that the accident was the cause of her injuries.  On this basis, the court was satisfied that the accident was a cause of Ms. Zaruk’s injuries.

However, the Athey decision also recognizes that it is sometimes appropriate to factor a pre-existing condition or injury into an award of damages:

Likewise, if there is a measurable risk that the pre-existing condition would have detrimentally affected the plaintiff in the future, regardless of the defendant’s negligence, then this can be taken into account in reducing the overall award…

On this basis, the court awarded Ms. Zaruk $50,000 in damages less 15% to account for the possibility that her arthritis would have caused her pain and discomfort in any event.