In the case GREWAL-CHEEMA V. TASSONE, 2010 BCSC 1182 (“TASSONE”), released on August 23, 2010, the Court awarded damages for “loss of housekeeping and childcare capacity”, despite the joint Defendants’ arguments against such an award. In this case, the Plaintiff was pregnant when she suffered various soft tissue injuries as a result of a motor vehicle accident.

In Schmidt v. Hawkins, 2010 BCSC 1154 (“Schmidt”), a judgment released on August 16, 2010, the Court addressed the issue of mitigation and the nature of the Plaintiff’s duty to follow medical advice (at paragraphs 142-146). The Court began its analysis by noting that the onus was on the Defendant to establish the existence of a failure to mitigate on a balance of probabilities.

While last week’s entry dealt with the applicability of joint and several liability to indivisible injuries, a case released on August 11, 2010, DANICEK V. ALEXANDER HOLBURN BEAUDIN & LANG, 2010 BCSC 1111 (“DANICEK”), provides an example of how a court may still distinguish between injuries caused by multiple tortfeasors and decline to impose joint and several liability.

The case of Bradley v. Groves, 2010 BCCA 361 (“Bradley”), released on July 29, 2010, dealt with “indivisible” injuries resulting from two separate accidents. At trial, the Defendant was found to be responsible for all injuries suffered by the Plaintiff, despite the fact that the initial injuries caused by the Defendant’s negligence were later compounded by an unrelated accident.

In the case Hildebrand v. Musseau 2010 BCSC 1022 (“Hildebrand”), judgment released July 21, 2010, the issue “agony of the moment” was considered. The cause of action in Hildebrand arose when the Plaintiff, who was riding dirt bikes side-by-side with a friend along the right-hand side of the road, was forced to take evasive action after noticing the Defendant driving towards him on the wrong side of the road.

In the case Walter v. Plummer, 2010 BCSC 1017 (“Walter”), released on July 20, 2010, the Court examined the role of scientific evidence relating to driver reaction time in the context of liability apportionment. The case of Walter dealt with an accident in which the Plaintiff was struck by the Defendant’s motorcycle as he jaywalked across a street near a secondary school.

In the case of Furness v. Guest, 2010 BCSC 974 (“Furness”), released on July 12, 2010, the Plaintiff was awarded $40,000 in non-pecuniary damages.

In the case Cikojevic v. Timm, 2010 BCSC 800 (“Cikojevic”), released June 8, 2010, the Court considered the evidentiary role of photographs which were downloaded from the Plaintiff’s Facebook page.

In Eggleston v. Watson, 2010 BCSC 890, a judgment released on June 24, 2010, the Court considered whether it was appropriate to make an “in-trust” award for services rendered by the Plaintiff’s wife and daughter.  The Plaintiff in this case was seriously injured when struck by an intoxicated driver as he walked along the shoulder of a road.

The Court considered the services rendered by the Plaintiff’s family members at para. 220:

The case of Fennell v. Hiebert, 2010 BCSC 824 was released on June 11, 2010, and deals with injuries sustained by a plaintiff on January 30, 1998, when she was ten years old.