White v. Gait et al., (2004) 204 B.C.A.C. 234 (CA)

• Judge: Levine, Smith and Thackray, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: October 08, 2004
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (2004), 204 B.C.A.C. 234 (CA);2004 BCCA 517

White v. Gait (2004), 204 B.C.A.C. 234 (CA);

  333 W.A.C. 234

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] B.C.A.C. TBEd. OC.036

Robert Carl White (plaintiff/ respondent) v. Edward Gait and G.W.G. Rentals Ltd. (defendants/appellants)

(CA031016; 2004 BCCA 517)

Indexed As: White v. Gait et al.

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Levine, Smith and Thackray, JJ.A.

October 8, 2004.

Summary:

The plaintiff was injured in a 1999 motor vehicle. The defendants admitted liability. A jury awarded the plaintiff, inter alia, $197,000 general damages for nonpecuniary loss and $24,000 for loss of future earning capacity. The defendants appealed the nonpecuniary general damage award. The plaintiff cross-appealed the earning capacity award.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, Thackray, J.A., dissenting, allowed the appeal and substituted an award of $115,000 for nonpecuniary loss. The court dismissed the cross-appeal. Thackray, J.A., agreed that the damage award could not stand, but would have remitted the matter of what was the appropriate damage award for a new trial.

Damage Awards - Topic 102

Injury and death - Head injuries - Brain damage - The 33 year old male plaintiff suffered injuries in a 1999 motor vehicle accident in which he was thrown through the rear window of his truck - The plaintiff submitted that as well as soft tissues injuries to his neck and back, he suffered a mild traumatic brain injury - The plaintiff returned to work as a golf superintendent after three months - The jury awarded $197,000 general damages for nonpecuniary loss - The defendants appealed, challenging the finding of a mild brain injury or, alternatively, that the award was inordinately high - The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and substituted an award of $115,000 - There was evidence capable of supporting a jury finding that the plaintiff suffered a mild brain injury, that he continued to suffer ongoing pain and cognitive deficits and that his condition would likely continue beyond the foreseeable future - However, the appropriate range of damages was $80,000-$100,000 - Accordingly, $197,000 was so inordinately high as to be wholly disproportionate to a reasonable award - The verdict was manifestly unreasonable - See paragraphs 10 to 33.

Practice - Topic 8806

Appeals - General principles - Duty of appellate court regarding damage awards by a jury - The British Columbia Court of Appeal stated that the court would interfere with a jury's damage award only where it was so inordinately high or low as to be "wholly out of all proportion" to the circumstances of the case - See paragraph 10.

Cases Noticed:

Boyd v. Harris (2004), 195 B.C.A.C. 217; 319 W.A.C. 217; 24 B.C.L.R.(4th) 155; 2004 BCCA 146, refd to. [paras. 10, 63].

Unger v. Singh et al. (2000), 133 B.C.A.C. 265; 217 W.A.C. 265; 72 B.C.L.R.(3d) 353; 2000 BCCA 94, refd to. [paras. 16, 48].

Baas et al. v. Jellema (1998), 106 B.C.A.C. 231; 172 W.A.C. 231; 48 B.C.L.R.(3d) 310; 158 D.L.R.(4th) 633 (C.A.), dist. [paras. 16, 47].

Tompkins v. Barden et al., [1998] B.C.T.C. Uned. G96 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 16].

Siemens v. Damien et al., [2002] B.C.T.C. Uned. 352; 2002 BCSC 1065, refd to. [para. 16].

Cybulski v. Bertrand et al., [2000] B.C.T.C. 225; 2000 BCSC 415, refd to. [para. 16].

Mosher v. Sedens Estate et al., [1998] B.C.T.C. Uned. C39 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 20].

Alden v. Spooner et al. (2002), 177 B.C.A.C. 105; 291 W.A.C. 105; 6 B.C.L.R.(4th) 308; 2002 BCCA 592, leave to appeal denied (2003), 320 N.R. 48; 200 B.C.A.C. 320; 327 W.A.C. 320 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 26].

Lee v. Dawson et al., [2003] B.C.T.C. 1012; 17 B.C.L.R.(4th) 80; 2003 BCSC 1012, refd to. [para. 26].

Bob v. Bellerose (2003), 184 B.C.A.C. 218; 302 W.A.C. 218; 16 B.C.L.R.(4th) 56; 2003 BCCA 371, refd to. [paras. 26, 53].

Way v. Frigon, 2001 BCSC 573, refd to. [paras. 26, 69].

Vaillancourt v. Molnar Estate (2002), 176 B.C.A.C. 109; 290 W.A.C. 109; 8 B.C.L.R.(4th) 260; 2002 BCCA 685, refd to. [para. 36].

Lam v. Main et al. (2003), 187 B.C.A.C. 238; 307 W.A.C. 238; 2003 BCCA 517, refd to. [para. 36].

Ferguson v. Lush (2003), 188 B.C.A.C. 118; 308 W.A.C. 118; 20 B.C.L.R.(4th) 228; 2003 BCCA 579, refd to. [para. 37].

Cory et al. v. Marsh (1993), 22 B.C.A.C. 118; 38 W.A.C. 118; 77 B.C.L.R.(2d) 248 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

McLean v. McCannell, [1937] S.C.R. 341; [1937] 2 D.L.R. 639, refd to. [para. 38].

Davies v. Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd., [1942] A.C. 601 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 39].

Nance v. British Columbia Electric Railway, [1951] 3 D.L.R. 705; 2 W.W.R.(N.S.) 665 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 40].

Scott v. Musial, [1959] 2 Q.B. 429; [1959] 3 All E.R. 193; [1959] 3 W.L.R. 437 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

Ward v. James, [1965] 1 All E.R. 563; [1966] 1 Q.B. 273 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 42].

Cody v. Leonard (1995), 66 B.C.A.C. 161; 108 W.A.C. 161; 15 B.C.L.R.(3d) 117 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

Anderson v. Carmichael, [1988] B.C.W.L.D. 1958; 1987 CarswellBC 1038 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

Stewart et al. v. Shimpei (1995), 65 B.C.A.C. 113; 106 W.A.C. 113 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 46].

Dhillon et al. v. Mischki et al. (2000), 133 B.C.A.C. 287; 217 W.A.C. 287; 2000 BCCA 95, refd to. [para. 49].

Strazza v. Stupich (2000), 138 B.C.A.C. 161; 226 W.A.C. 161; 2000 BCCA 108, refd to. [para. 50].

Hebert v. Charles et al., [2002] B.C.A.C. Uned. 16; 2002 BCCA 88, refd to. [para. 51].

Le v. Luz (2003), 189 B.C.A.C. 155; 309 W.A.C. 155; 20 B.C.L.R.(4th) 238; 2003 BCCA 640, refd to. [para. 55].

Dubach v. Nahal et al., [2003] B.C.A.C. Uned. 157; 2003 BCCA 526, refd to. [para. 56].

White v. Nuraney et al. (2000), 143 B.C.A.C. 86; 235 W.A.C. 86; 80 B.C.L.R.(3d) 307; 2000 BCCA 536, refd to. [para. 57].

Novak v. Lane et al. (2000), 139 B.C.A.C. 155; 227 W.A.C. 155; 2000 BCCA 267, refd to. [para. 58].

Binnie v. Marsollier et al. (2001), 158 B.C.A.C. 201; 258 W.A.C. 201; 2001 BCCA 543, refd to. [para. 59].

Banks v. Shrigley (2001), 154 B.C.A.C. 214; 252 W.A.C. 214; 2001 BCCA 232, refd to. [para. 61].

Balla v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia (2001), 149 B.C.A.C. 220; 244 W.A.C. 220; 85 B.C.L.R.(3d) 70; 2001 BCCA 62, refd to. [para. 61].

Dudek v. Li (2000), 138 B.C.A.C. 112; 226 W.A.C. 112; 74 B.C.L.R.(3d) 341; 2000 BCCA 321, refd to. [para. 62].

Crosby v. Joyce et al., [2000] B.C.A.C. Uned. 188; 2000 BCCA 541, refd to. [para. 62].

Whitehorn v. Wallden (2001), 156 B.C.A.C. 317; 255 W.A.C. 317; 90 B.C.L.R.(3d) 275; 2001 BCCA 419, refd to. [para. 62].

Homolka v. Harris et al. (2002), 167 B.C.A.C. 153; 274 W.A.C. 153; 100 B.C.L.R.(3d) 218; 2002 BCCA 262, refd to. [para. 62].

Brisson v. Brisson (2002), 168 B.C.A.C. 255; 275 W.A.C. 255; 2002 BCCA 279, refd to. [para. 62].

Prentice v. Dharamshi (2002), 179 B.C.A.C. 200; 295 W.A.C. 200; 6 B.C.L.R.(4th) 39; 2002 BCCA 490, refd to. [para. 62].

Hoskin v. Han et al. (2003), 181 B.C.A.C. 130; 298 W.A.C. 130; 12 B.C.L.R.(4th) 21; 2003 BCCA 220, refd to. [para. 62].

Foreman v. Foster (2001), 147 B.C.A.C. 254; 241 W.A.C. 254; 84 B.C.L.R.(3d) 184; 2001 BCCA 26, refd to. [para. 63].

Mechanical & General Inventions Co. & Lehwess v. Austin & Austin Motor Co., [1935] A.C. 346 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 65].

Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto and Manning, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130; 184 N.R. 1; 84 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 65].

Force v. Gibbons (1978), 9 B.C.L.R. 144; 93 D.L.R.(3d) 626 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 67].

Laycock v. Longo et al. (2002), 169 B.C.A.C. 164; 276 W.A.C. 164; 2002 BCCA 186, refd to. [para. 70].

Johnson v. Laing et al. (2004), 201 B.C.A.C. 161; 328 W.A.C. 161; 2004 BCCA 364, refd to. [para. 83].

Webster et al. v. Ernst & Young et al. (2000), 136 B.C.A.C. 228; 222 W.A.C. 228; 75 B.C.L.R.(3d) 169; 2000 BCCA 229, refd to. [para. 86].

Bisson v. Powell River (District) (1967), 62 W.W.R.(N.S.) 707 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 88].

Sims v. Howard (William) and Son Ltd., [1964] 2 Q.B. 409 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 93].

McArthur v. De Boer, [2001] B.C.T.C. 1842; 2001 BCSC 1842, refd to. [para. 95].

Baxter v. Brown (1997), 87 B.C.A.C. 69; 143 W.A.C. 69; 28 B.C.L.R.(3d) 351 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 100].

Authors and Works Noticed:

British Columbia, Law Reform Commission, Review of Civil Jury Awards, Working Paper No. 44 (1983), p. 58 [para. 81].

Counsel:

A.L. Murray and K.E. Jamieson, for the appellant;

G.R. Jackson and D.D. McKnight, for the respondent.

This appeal and cross-appeal were heard on June 16, 2004, at Vancouver, B.C., before Levine, Smith and Thackray, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

On October 8, 2004, the judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered and the following opinions were filed:

Smith, J.A. (Levine, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 33;

Thackray, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 34 to 101.