1. Trilogy Conclusions
    • 100K cap on non-pecuniary damages became law to ensure stability and predictiveness in awards
    • Upper limit only exceeded in exceptional cases.
  2. Trilogy Conclusions - Why is cap on non-pecuniary damages Necessary?
    • Not meant to be compensatory but to make life better
    • Will be fully compensated for future income and care costs, which are more important
    • Such claims by severely injured can be limitless, leading to excessive awards
    • Not having a cap could lead to social burden. High awards could cause premiums for insurance to be high
  3. Trilogy cases
    Andrews v. Grand & Toy, Arnold v. Teno, Thornton v. School District (Prince George)
  4. Fenn v. City of Peterborough
    why did CoA awarded general damages of 125k
    • indexed for inflation (1.5 years after last trilogy case)
    • more severly injured than trilogy
  5. Lindal v. Lindal
    under what circumstances should exceed 100k?
    • Trial awarded 135k
    • BC CoA reduced to 100k.
    • supreme: supported upper limit but should be inflation-adjusted.
    • Rationale: not meant to be compensatory and thus shouldn't consider level of injury
  6. Ter Neuzen v. Korn
    evolved into 'rule of law'
    • AIDS.
    • Trial awarded 460k for general damages
    • CoA lowered it to 100k.
  7. Decisions in Lee v. Dawson
    1. Facts: brain injury.
    2. Decision: capped
      • Jury awarded 2m; trial reduced to 295k (100k adjusted for inflation)
      • appealed cap shouldn't apply because list of reasons & violates charter discriminating against seriously injured and injury type (doesn't apply to defamation)
      • BC CoA rejected appeal and upheld cap
        1. not meant to be compensatory so shouldn't depend on seriousness
        2. might be time to rationalize and examine the cap, but CoA cannot overturn the trilogy
  8. Lee v. Dawson Plaintiff - Why Cap Shouldnt Apply
    • Trilogy: rough limit, not strict rule of law
    • No skyrocketing of awards occurred
    • Precludes juries from keeping up with pace of social, eco changes
    • Inconsistent with modern values of accepting of disabilities
    • disregards importance of juries
    • Radical change, not incremental
    • unfair for those whose situations differ from trilogy
    • Arbitrary and illogical
  9. Cases Where Cap Doesn't Apply and why
    • Sexual assaults: S.Y. v. F.G.C.
    • Defamation:
      • Hill v. Church of Scientology
      • Young v. Bella: negligently mistaken appellant as sexual offender, affected her reputation and future (ability to complete education, income-earning)
        • Why: exceptional cases and unlikely to impact insurance premium thus not a social burden
Card Set