The 小蓝视频 Court of Appeals has upheld a $1.8 million judgment following a 2018 car crash on Sweden Way at Bridgeport Road in Richmond.
A 小蓝视频 Supreme Court judge awarded Ryan Corness, who ran a floor laying company, $1.8 million for future loss of income, future care and special damages, among other things.
But the defendants, Teresa Ng and Tony Chau, who admitted liability in the accident, claimed the judge, Madam Justice Wilkinson, erred in the original 10-day trial.
Therefore, they appealed the $1.8 million, saying Wilkinson failed to account for residual earning capacity, improperly based awards on the cost of replacement labour and didn’t have the necessary evidence in awarding costs for future care.
Corness, who lives in Langley, ran a floor-laying business, Performance Hardwood, and did much of the work himself as well as hiring subcontractors.
He also renovated and sold houses.
Both cars – the defendants’ Mercedes Sprinter and the plaintiff’s Honda Odyssey – were totalled in the accident.
Wilkinson notes the defendant entered the intersection on a red light without slowing down and drove into the Corness’ van.
Corness had a previous back injury, lumbar degenerative disc disease, but this was largely resolved at the time of the accident with a cortisone treatment, Wilkinson noted in the original ruling.
In the original trial, the defendants claimed Corness overstated his pain after the accident, but Wilkinson disagreed.
Wilkinson noted Corness was “very active and successful in each aspect of his life” until the accident.
However, after the accident, Corness reduced his workload, his home renovations and time spent working out at a gym and he stopped his recreational activities, Wilkinson noted. He also began taking higher levels of pain killers.
Corness hadn’t taken prescription pain medication since 2015 until the accident happened.
Wilkinson noted the most serious injuries were to Corness’ lower back, but he also suffered from depression and anxiety resulting from the accident.
The appeals judges concluded Wilkinson didn’t err in her assessment of past and future earnings, the cost of future care nor in the cost of replacement labour, according to the ruling written by Madam Justice Stromberg-Stein.
As for the argument that Corness could have sought other employment, this was also dismissed by the appeals judges.
