Case Studies

Anderson v. Jones, 2003 BCSC 746Anderson v. Jones - settlement amountBeick v. Webb et al, 2002 BCSC 1251Beick v. Webb et al - settlement amountClaiter v. Rose et al, 2004 BCSC 50Claiter v. Rose et al - settlement amountFarshchian v. Spencer, 2002 BCSC 83Farshchian v. Spencer - settlement amountHadland v. Thompson, 2002 BCSC 380Hadland v. Thompson - settlement amountKenny v. Leveson-Gowen et al, (2005), 2005 BCSC 447 (BCSC)Kenny v. Leveson-Gowen et al - Settlement AmountKlippenstein v. Parmar, 2003 BCSC 1138Klippenstein v. Parmar - settlement amountMosher v. Ferrari and Mosher v. Bitoni, 1998 CarswellBC 197 (BCSC)Mosher v. Ferrari and Mosher v. Bitoni - settlement amountRosvold v. Dunlop (2001) 2001 BCCA 1Rosvold v. Dunlop - settlement amountTombe v. Stefulj, 2002 BSCS 154Tombe v. Stefulj - settlement amountZaruk v. Simpson et al, 2003 BCSC 1748Zaruk v. Simpson et al - settlement amount

Get the answers from Jill Franklin,
Best Selling Author of the Auto Accident Suvivor`s Guide

Tombe v. Stefulj - settlement amount

Total award: $12,800 less $2,429.56 for money ICBC already paid for housekeeping assistance.

Based on the reports provided by Tombe's counsel, the Court determined that, in the initial 26 weeks after the accident, there was a loss of housekeeping capacity of about 14 hours per week and for 103 weeks. After that time, up until Nov. 1, 2000, there was a loss of approximately 7 hours per week.

With respect to an award for loss of housekeeping capacity, the Court observed:

"As we have seen, it is now well established that a plaintiff whose ability to perform housekeeping services is diminished in part or in whole ought to be compensated for that loss. It is equally well established that the loss of housekeeping capacity is the plaintiff's and not that of her family. When family members have gratuitously done the work the plaintiff can no longer do and the tasks they perform have a market value, that value provides a tangible indication of the loss the plaintiff has suffered and enables the court to assign a specific economic value in monetary terms to the loss. This does not mean the loss is that of the family members or that they are to be compensated. Their provision of services evidences the plaintiff's loss of capacity and provides a basis for valuing that loss. The loss remains the plaintiff's loss of economic capacity."

The Court also noted that a calculation of damages for loss of housekeeping capacity is not merely the application of a mathematical formula. But rather, the calculation involves intangibles and contingencies including the effect of holidays, illness and of what might have been if the accident had not occurred.

The Judge assessed Tombe's loss of housekeeping capacity at $12,800, based on a rate of $12 per hour, less a sum of $2,429.56 for money ICBC already paid for housekeeping assistance.