Barnes v. Richardson

Barnes v. Richardson

The trial judge properly considered retraining costs and loss of income during retraining within the overall award for loss of earning capacity, appropriately accounted for contingencies including pre-existing condition by a 15% reduction, and the resulting award was not so inordinately low as to warrant appellate...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2010 BCCA 116
Parties
Appellant on Cross Appeal (plaintiff): Sean Matthew Barnes; Respondents on Cross Appeal (defendants): Samual Keith Richardson and Keith Richardson; Defendants: Elaine Minichiello and Anthony Minichiello
Court
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Personal Injury (cross Appeal) / Appeal From Trial on Quantum (cross Appeal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; trial judgment and damages affirmed
Legal Topics
Loss of Earning Capacity, Non Pecuniary Damages, Retraining Costs, Causation, Apportionment for Pre Existing Condition
Source Language
english
Torts Personal Injury Damages Civil Procedure Loss of Earning Capacity Non Pecuniary Damages Retraining Costs Causation +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sean Matthew Barnes

Appellant on Cross Appeal (plaintiff)

Samual Keith Richardson and Keith Richardson

Respondents on Cross Appeal (defendants)

Elaine Minichiello and Anthony Minichiello

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Personal Injury (cross Appeal) / Appeal From Trial on Quantum (cross Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the award for loss of earning capacity adequately compensated plaintiff including retraining costs and loss of income during retraining
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in failing to account for the risk of non-completion of retraining
  3. 3 Whether the damages awarded were inordinately low and warrant appellate intervention

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge properly considered retraining costs and loss of income during retraining within the overall award for loss of earning capacity, appropriately accounted for contingencies including pre-existing condition by a 15% reduction, and the resulting award was not so inordinately low as to warrant appellate intervention; appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; trial judgment and damages affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; trial judgment and damages affirmed