Kroeker v. Jansen et al., (1995) 58 B.C.A.C. 1 (CA)

• Judge: Taylor, Gibbs, Goldie, Prowse and Ryan, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: April 06, 1995
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (1995), 58 B.C.A.C. 1 (CA);1995 CanLII 761 (BC CA);123 DLR (4th) 652;[1995] 6 WWR 5;4 BCLR (3d) 178;24 CCLT (2d) 113;58 BCAC 1;[1995] BCJ No 724 (QL);54 ACWS (3d) 898

Kroeker v. Jansen (1995), 58 B.C.A.C. 1 (CA);

    96 W.A.C. 1

MLB headnote and full text

Antonida Kroeker (plaintiff/respondent) v. Alvin Henry Jansen and Jansen Western Transport Inc. (defendants/appellants)

(CA015461)

Indexed As: Kroeker v. Jansen et al.

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Taylor, Gibbs, Goldie, Prowse and Ryan, JJ.A.

April 6, 1995.

Summary:

The defendants in a motor vehicle accident case appealed the award of damages assessed against them for "loss of ability to perform household tasks".

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, Taylor and Ryan, JJ.A., dissenting, allowed the appeal by reducing the quantum of damages awarded.

Damages - Topic 1536

General damages - Elements of - Loss or impairment of housekeeping capacity - An injured wife sustained a diminution of her ability to perform some of the household tasks she would normally perform, but her husband performed them instead - The British Columbia Court of Appeal affirmed that the wife had a claim for damages even though the housekeeping and other services were replaced gratuitously from within the family - The trial judge did not err in assessing damages for loss of future ability to perform household tasks - Applying the test of reasonableness, however, the court held that $23,000 (representing a three year incapacity) was inordinately high - The court substituted $7000 as fair and reasonable compensation - See paragraphs 2 to 31.

Cases Noticed:

Ratych v. Bloomer, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 940; 107 N.R. 335; 39 O.A.C. 103; 69 D.L.R.(4th) 25; 30 C.C.E.L. 161; 3 C.C.L.T.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 2].

Cooper v. Miller (No. 1), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 359; 164 N.R. 81; 41 B.C.A.C. 1; 66 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 2].

Cunningham v. Wheeler - see Cooper v. Miller.

Pickering v. Deakin, [1985] 1 W.W.R. 289 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 2].

De Sousa v. Kuntz (1989), 42 B.C.L.R.(2d) 186 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 2].

Hall v. Miller (1989), 64 D.L.R.(4th) 369 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

Donnelly v. Joyce, [1973] 3 All E.R. 475 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

Daly v. General Steam Navigation Co., [1980] 3 All E.R. 696; [1981] 1 W.L.R. 120 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

Hunt v. Severs, [1993] 4 All E.R. 180 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

Hodges v. Frost (1984), 53 A.L.R. 373 (Fed. Ct.), refd to. [para. 8].

McCallum v. Ritter, [1990] 5 W.W.R. 660; 83 Sask.R. 303 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

Fobel v. Dean and MacDonald, [1991] 6 W.W.R. 408; 93 Sask.R. 103; 4 W.A.C. 103 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

Benstead et al. v. Murphy et al. (1994), 157 A.R. 198; 77 W.A.C. 198 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

Johnson v. Shelest (1988), 22 B.C.L.R.(2d) 230 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

Peter v. Beblow, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 980; 150 N.R. 1; 23 B.C.A.C. 81; 39 W.A.C. 81; 44 R.F.L.(3d) 329; 101 D.L.R.(4th) 621, refd to. [para. 20].

Counsel:

Scott Stewart and Mary Helen Wright, for the appellants;

Vincent Orchard, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on January 23, 1995, at Vancouver, British Columbia, before Taylor, Gibbs, Goldie, Prowse and Ryan, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

On April 6, 1995, the judgment of the court was rendered and the following opinions were filed:

Gibbs, J.A. (Goldie and Prowse, JJ.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 31;

Taylor, J.A., dissenting (Ryan, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 32 to 64.