Case Citation: Langford (City) v. Matthews, 2024 BCCA 214

Overview

The case, Langford (City) v. Matthews, from the British Columbia Court of Appeal highlights how Appeal Courts avoid overturning jury awards unless they are “wholly disproportionate or shockingly unreasonable”. At trial, the jury awarded over $1 million, including $804,000 for past loss of earning capacity and $175,000 for non-pecuniary loss. The Defendant appealed the case, arguing damages were unsupported by the evidence and disproportionate compared to similar cases. The decision was upheld on appeal, the Court emphasized the jury’s role in assessing the evidence and determining credibility, finding that their verdict was rational and justified based on the trial evidence.

Facts: Debilitating Injury 

Sherry Matthews, the Respondent, was struck by a puck while watching a roller hockey game in Langford, British Columbia, in May 2014. At the time of the incident, Ms. Mathews was 60 years old. She suffered significant injuries and claimed that these injuries severely impacted her life, leaving her unable to work or manage daily activities. The Appellants, City of Langford, Performance Plus Hockey Inc., and other Defendants, admitted liability but contested the nature and extent of Ms. Matthews’s injuries and the quantum of damages.

Trial: Over A Million in Damages Award by Jury

At trial, the Respondent presented evidence of her post-accident impairments, including chronic headaches, vision and breathing problems, cognitive difficulties, and psychological disorders. Experts testified that she suffered a mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI) leading to a neurocognitive disorder, persistent depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and impairment of executive functioning skills. These effects caused the Respondent’s work performance to decrease and caused her to quit her sales position in 2019 due to performance issues. 

Prior to the accident, she had a successful career as a salesperson, and her potential earnings were significant. She was an independent contractor, who sold credit and debit card processing terminals to businesses. Right before the accident, she signed a new contract which increased her commission from $125 per sale to $800 per sale plus a percentage of sales put through each terminal. At trial, the Respondent presented evidence from an expert economist which illustrated that Ms. Matthews was projected to be making over $400,000 annually based on her past performance and new contract. 

The Appellants argued that her symptoms were related to pre-existing conditions and not caused by the accident. They also questioned Ms. Matthews's credibility and the reliability of her expert witnesses. The Appellants called three lay witnesses to contest Ms. Matthews’s injuries. They only presented one expert witness, Dr Woolfenden, who speculated that Ms. Matthews’s brain injury should have resolved based on a statistical analysis. They did not present any expert to speak on Ms. Matthews’s earning capacity. 

The Jury awarded over one million dollars in damages to the Plaintiff. She was awarded $804,000 for loss of past earning capacity; $11,000 for loss of future earning capacity; $60,000 for the cost of future care; and $175,000 for non-pecuniary loss. The award for loss of past earning capacity was based on the expert economist report, her past performance, projected trajectory and her new contract. 

Appeal: Damages Award Upheld

On appeal, the awards for loss of past earning capacity and non-pecuniary loss was contested. The Appellants argued that the award of $804,000 for loss of past earning capacity was unsupported by Ms. Matthews’s historical earnings and was therefore unjust and unreasonable. They suggested that the award equated to an annual income far exceeding her pre-accident earnings. The Court of Appeal rejected this argument, noting that the jury's award was based on evidence presented at trial, including Ms. Matthews's successful sales career and expert economic analysis. The evidence showed that Ms. Matthews had a lucrative contract with Pivotal Payments, which was disrupted by the accident. Expert testimony indicated that, but for the accident, she could have earned significantly more. The Court found that the award was justified and reflected an appropriate assessment of the evidence, including the potential for higher earnings under the Pivotal contract.

The Appellants contended the award of $175,000 for non-pecuniary loss was disproportionate compared to awards in similar cases. They cited cases where awards for similar injuries ranged from $60,000 to $100,000. The Court of Appeal dismissed this argument, highlighting that the circumstances of Ms. Matthews’s injuries were more severe and had a greater impact on her life. The evidence showed that Ms. Matthews’s injuries were ongoing and likely permanent, significantly impairing her cognitive and psychological functioning. The Court noted that comparable cases cited by the Appellants involved less severe injuries with less impact on the Plaintiffs' lives. The award fell within a reasonable range considering the severity of Ms. Matthews’s injuries and their impact.

Key Takeaway

Appellate courts are reluctant to overturn damage awards unless they are deemed "wholly disproportionate or shockingly unreasonable."