Kwei v. Boisclair (1991), 6 B.C.A.C. 314 (CA);
13 W.A.C. 314
MLB headnote and full text
Zu Geng Kwei, a.k.a. Jonathan Kwei, Sox Chan Lou, Kin Hei Tang, Fong Nin Tang, Choi Long Tang, and Phong Vay Tang (plaintiffs/appellants) v. Robert Boisclair (defendant/respondent) Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (third party/respondent)
(CA013020)
Indexed As: Kwei et al. v. Boisclair et al.
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Taggart, Cumming and Wood, JJ.A.
November 5, 1991.
Summary:
Kwei was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sued the defendant for damages. The trial judge allowed the action and assessed damages accordingly. The damage award included $35,000 for nonpecuniary loss and for future loss of earning capacity. Kwei appealed the $35,000 award.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the $35,000 award and awarded $50,000 for nonpecuniary loss and $40,000 for loss of future earning capacity.
Damage Awards – Topic 75
Injury and death – Body injuries – Diaphragm – [See
Damage Awards – Topic 105
].
Damage Awards – Topic 102
Injury and death – Head injuries – Brain damage – [See
Damage Awards – Topic 105
].
Damage Awards – Topic 105
Injury and death – Head injuries – Skull fracture and closed head injuries – The plaintiff, who was approximately 29 years old, was injured in a motor vehicle accident – He sustained a serious closed head injury with internal bleeding and a ruptured diaphragm requiring surgery – Hospitalized one month – Some permanent brain damage, causing intellectual problems and personality change – Suffering post-traumatic stress disorder – Ability to work affected – The British Columbia Court of Appeal awarded $50,000 non-pecuniary general damages and $40,000 for loss of future earning capacity.
Damage Awards – Topic 200
Injury and death – Psychological injuries – Anxiety state or neurosis – [See
Damage Awards – Topic 105
].
Damage Awards – Topic 493
General damage awards – Loss of prospective earnings – [See
Damage Awards – Topic 105
].
Cases Noticed:
Nance v. British Columbia Electric Railway Co., [1951] A.C. 601, refd to. [para. 16].
Woelk v. Halvorson, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 430; 33 N.R. 323; 24 A.R. 621, refd to. [para. 17].
Counsel:
F. Cashman and W.D. Macleod, for the appellant;
R.J. Borrows, for the respondent;
C.E. Barnes, for the third party.
This appeal was heard in Vancouver, British Columbia, before Taggart, Cumming and Wood, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The decision of the court was delivered orally on November 5, 1991, including the following opinions:
Taggart, J.A. – see paragraphs 1 to 28, 31;
Cumming, J.A. – see paragraph 29;
Taggart, J.A. – see paragraph 30.
