Lo v. Matsumoto, 2015 BCCA 84
| Judge | Newbury, Saunders and Willcock, JJ.A. |
| Court | Court of Appeal (British Columbia) |
| Case Date | February 16, 2015 |
| Jurisdiction | British Columbia |
| Citations | 2015 BCCA 84;(2015), 367 B.C.A.C. 220 (CA) |
Lo v. Matsumoto (2015), 367 B.C.A.C. 220 (CA);
631 W.A.C. 220
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite: [2015] B.C.A.C. TBEd. MR.017
Norman Lo (appellant/plaintiff) v. Jennilee Rose Matsumoto (respondent/defendant)
(CA041707; 2015 BCCA 84)
Indexed As: Lo v. Matsumoto
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Newbury, Saunders and Willcock, JJ.A.
February 18, 2015.
Summary:
Lo sued Matsumoto for damages for injuries suffered in a motor vehicle accident. Lo's primary and continuing injuries consisted of a fractured coccyx, a disc herniation at L4/5, irritation of the L5 nerve root, a disc protrusion at L5/S1, and erectile dysfunction. The trial judge awarded non-pecuniary damages of $130,000, including the sexual dysfunction. In respect of "past wage loss" he awarded the "net" amount claimed, of $1,066.97. These awards were not challenged. The trial judge awarded damages of $30,000 for loss of earning capacity and damages of $5,000 for costs of future care. Lo appealed these two awards.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal to the extent of increasing the award for future care costs by $7,000, for a total of $12,000. The appeal was otherwise dismissed.
Damage Awards - Topic 489
Injury and death - General damage awards - Cost of future care - See paragraphs 12 to 22.
Damage Awards - Topic 492
Injury and death - General damage awards - Loss of earning capacity - See paragraphs 6 to 11.
Cases Noticed:
Brown v. Golaiy (1985), 26 B.C.L.R.(3d) 353 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 8].
Gillam v. Wiebe et al., [2013] B.C.T.C. Uned. 565; 2013 BCSC 565, dist. [para. 9].
Demarzo et al. v. Michaud, [2010] B.C.T.C. Uned. 255; 2010 BCSC 255, dist. [para. 9].
Gregory v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia et al. (2011), 303 B.C.A.C. 92; 512 W.A.C. 92; 2011 BCCA 144, refd to. [para. 17].
O'Connell v. Yung et al. (2012), 316 B.C.A.C. 115; 537 W.A.C. 115; 2012 BCCA 57, refd to. [para. 20].
Counsel:
J. Guglielmucci, for the appellant;
G. Murphy, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on February 16, 2015, by Newbury, Saunders and Willcock, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The following oral reasons for judgment of the Court of Appeal were delivered by Newbury, J.A., on February 18, 2015.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kempton v. Struke Estate,
...is a reasonable likelihood that she will use the suggested services: see Shongu, at para. 210 (citing Lo v. Matsumoto, 2015 BCCA 84, at para. 20 and O'Connell v. Yung, 2012 BCCA 57, at para. 68). In Penner v. Insurance Corporation of British......
-
Brooks v. Habib, 2019 BCSC 1398
...and fast rule” that requires a plaintiff to testify that he or she intends to use the item in order to justify an award: Lo v. Matsumoto, 2015 BCCA 84 at paras. 20‑21. The Court should be cautious about reducing or eliminating the cost for an item of future care simply on the basis that the......
-
McHatten v. McCrea,
...to show that there is a reasonable likelihood that the plaintiff will use the suggested services: see Lo v. Matsumoto, 2015 BCCA 84, at [197] Mr. Lawless’ recommendations that the plaintiff be given access to a 12-session course of vocational c......
-
Repin v. Aam Ventures Ltd, 2020 BCSC 227
...with the onus on the plaintiff to show there is a reasonable likelihood that the suggested services will be used: Lo v. Matsumoto, 2015 BCCA 84 at para. 20, and Izony v. Weidlich, 2006 BCSC 1315 at para. 74. In Izony, the court noted that if a plaintiff has not used a particular item or ser......
-
Kempton v. Struke Estate, 2020 BCSC 2094
...is a reasonable likelihood that she will use the suggested services: see Shongu, at para. 210 (citing Lo v. Matsumoto, 2015 BCCA 84, at para. 20 and O'Connell v. Yung, 2012 BCCA 57, at para. 68). In Penner v. Insurance Corporation of British......
-
Brooks v. Habib, 2019 BCSC 1398
...and fast rule” that requires a plaintiff to testify that he or she intends to use the item in order to justify an award: Lo v. Matsumoto, 2015 BCCA 84 at paras. 20‑21. The Court should be cautious about reducing or eliminating the cost for an item of future care simply on the basis that the......
-
McHatten v. McCrea,
...to show that there is a reasonable likelihood that the plaintiff will use the suggested services: see Lo v. Matsumoto, 2015 BCCA 84, at [197] Mr. Lawless’ recommendations that the plaintiff be given access to a 12-session course of vocational c......
-
Gustafson v. MacFarlane,
...the evidence at hand, not beginning with a presumption that recommended treatments or services will be used. In Lo v. Matsumoto, 2015 BCCA 84 at para. 20, Newbury J.A., speaking for the court, explained … a plaintiff must prove his case, both in terms of need and the likely uti......