S.F.P. v. MacDonald et al., (1999) 234 A.R. 273 (QB)

• Judge: Veit, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: October 13, 1998
• Citations: (1999), 234 A.R. 273 (QB)

S.F.P. v. MacDonald (1999), 234 A.R. 273 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] A.R. TBEd. FE.081

S.F.P. (plaintiff) v. Derek Paige MacDonald, Alton Leo MacDonald, Jenny Tu My Bang, and Herbers Auto Body Repair Ltd. (defendants)

(Action No. 9503-17885)

Indexed As: S.F.P. v. MacDonald et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Veit, J.

February 1, 1999.

Summary:

The plaintiff was involved in a minor rear-end collision. She sued the defendants for damages of $1.3 million. She claimed that the accident caused a closed head brain injury, fibromyalgia, tempero-mandibular joint disease and exacerbated other physical problems. She also claimed that the accident left her permanently unemployable.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the plaintiff's action. However, the court held that the plaintiff only proved that the accident caused soft tissue neck injuries and aggravated her pre-existing tempero-mandibular joint disease. The court assessed damages.

Damage Awards - Topic 111

Injury and death - Head injuries - Jaw - [See Damage Awards - Topic 178 ].

Damage Awards - Topic 112

Injury and death - Head injuries - Teeth - [See Damage Awards - Topic 178 ].

Damage Awards - Topic 178

Injury and death - Neck injuries - Whip­lash - The plaintiff was involved in a minor rear-end collision - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the plaintiff only proved that she suffered a mild whiplash and an acceleration of her pre-existing tempero-mandibular joint disease and dental problems - The court awarded the plaintiff $50,000 for whiplash - The court held that the damages were at the high end of the range for mild whip­lash, but the plaintiff was a person who took longer to recover, and the defendants had to take their victim as they found her -The court awarded the plaintiff $14,000 for the ac­celeration of her pre-existing tempero-mandibular joint disease and dental prob­lems - The court held that all of her injuries were resolved within one year of the accident.

Damages - Topic 591

Limits on compensatory damages - Pre­disposition to damage - Thin skull rule - "Thin skull" or "crumbling skull" - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench discussed the "thin skull" doctrine - See paragraphs 92 to 103 - The court stated that "that is the whole point of the development of the 'thin skull' doctrine: the results are unfore­seeable but the wrongdoer is nonetheless responsible for them. This arises from a policy adopted by the courts that, as between a wrongdoer and an innocent party, it should be the wrongdoer who bears the loss even though the extent of this loss may be due to an unforeseeable peculiar vulnerability to injury of the innocent party." - See paragraph 99.

Damages - Topic 598

Limits on compensatory damages - Pre­disposition to damage - Thin skull rule - Limitations on recovery - [See Damages - Topic 591 ].

Cases Noticed:

Athey v. Leonati et al., [1996] 3 S.C.R. 458; 203 N.R. 36; 81 B.C.A.C. 243; 132 W.A.C. 243; 140 D.L.R.(4th) 235, refd to. [paras. 6, 7, 25, 92].

Nicoll v. Lanz (1995), 170 A.R. 175; 29 Alta. L.R.(3d) 163 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 6].

Labonte v. Sowers (1994), 158 A.R. 350 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 6].

Baillie v. Crown Life Insurance Co. (1998), 59 Alta. L.R.(3d) 75 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 6].

Holman v. Martin (1995), 170 A.R. 267; 30 Alta. L.R.(3d) 378 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 6].

Brouwer v. Grewal and Edmonton (City) (1995), 168 A.R. 342; 30 Alta. L.R.(3d) 244 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 6].

Gilchrist v. Oatway (1995), 168 A.R. 56; 29 Alta. L.R.(3d) 240 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 6].

Gilchrist v. Oatway (1997), 209 A.R. 225; 160 W.A.C. 225 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

Phillips v. Rost (1996), 185 A.R. 241 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 6].

Sczebel v. Silverston; Sczebel v. Mel's Blasting and Painting Ltd. and Massive (1988), 85 A.R. 293; 59 Alta. L.R.(2d) 165 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 6].

Zibrik v. Sams et al., [1997] B.C.T.C. Uned. 465 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 6].

Tabrizi v. Whallon Machine Inc. (1996), 29 C.C.L.T.(2d) 176 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 6].

Davies v. Chouinard (1995), 166 A.R. 363 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 6].

Beger v. MacAstocker Estate (1996), 192 A.R. 241 (Q.B.), further reasons (1996), 194 A.R. 397 (Q.B.), refd to. [paras. 6, 7].

Linnen v. Bradford (1993), 9 Alta. L.R.(3d) 55 (Q.B.), refd to. [paras. 6, 7].

Rombough v. Madonick Estate et al. (1997), 154 Sask.R. 91; 35 C.C.L.T.(2d) 312 (Q.B.), refd to. [paras. 6, 7].

Vukelic v. Canada (1997), 86 B.C.A.C. 1; 142 W.A.C. 1; 32 C.C.L.T.(2d) 229 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 6, 7].

McLaren v. Schwalbe (1994), 148 A.R. 1 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 6].

Johnston v. Murchison (1995), 127 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1; 396 A.P.R. 1 (P.E.I.C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

Harbora v. McIvor et al. (1997), 202 A.R. 99 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 7].

Logozar v. Golder (1992), 136 A.R. 363; 7 Alta. L.R.(3d) 44 (Q.B.), affd. (1994), 157 A.R. 102; 77 W.A.C. 102; 21 C.C.L.T.(2d) 203 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

Reynolds v. Pohynayko et al. (1997), 202 A.R. 1 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 7].

Stevens v. Okrainec (1997), 210 A.R. 161 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 7].

Tat v. Ellis et al. (1996), 180 A.R. 44 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 7].

Strutz et al. v. Ellingson et al. (1977), 2 A.R. 485 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 7].

Bullock v. Trafalgar Insurance Co. of Canada et al. (1996), 9 O.T.C. 245 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [paras. 7, 95, 97].

Ramsay (Tichkowsky) v. Bain (1995), 170 A.R. 298 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 7].

Smith v. Leech Brain & Co., [1961] 3 All E.R. 1159; [1962] 2 Q.B. 405 (Q.B.), refd to. [paras. 8, 98].

Cotic v. Gray - see Cotic Estate v. Izquierdo Estate.

Cotic Estate v. Izquierdo Estate (1981), 51 N.R. 46; 2 O.A.C. 191; 33 O.R.(2d) 356; 17 C.C.L.T. 138 (C.A.), affd. [1983] 2 S.C.R. 2; 51 N.R. 42; 2 O.A.C. 187, folld. [paras. 8, 100].

Briffett v. Gander and District Hospital Board et al. (1996), 137 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 271; 428 A.P.R. 271; 29 C.C.L.T.(2d) 251 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [paras. 8, 102].

Yoshikawa et al. v. Yu (1996), 73 B.C.A.C. 253; 120 W.A.C. 253; 28 C.C.L.T.(2d) 217 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 8, 102].

Janiak v. Ippolito, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 146; 57 N.R. 241; 9 O.A.C. 1; 31 C.C.L.T. 113, refd to. [para. 97].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Klar, Lewis, Dean of Alta. Law School, Pre-existing Conditions/Causation (1998) [para. 6, appendix D].

Roth, Causation and the Burden of Proof - An Age Old Dilemma and a New Age Approach, [1992] 14 Adv. Q. 70, gen­erally [para. 6].

Russell, Athey v. Leonati, Principles of Causation, The Barrister (1997), Ameri­can Criminal Trial Lawyers' Association, generally [para. 6].

Counsel:

Terrence M. Kulasa, for the plaintiff;

G.B. Comba, for the defendants.

This application was heard at Edmonton, Alberta, from September 14 to October 13, 1998, by Veit, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmon­ton, who delivered the following judgment on February 1, 1999.