The Han v. Chahal decision was released by the Supreme Court of British Columbia in Vancouver on July 29, 2013.
On the night of November 23, 2008, Ms. Xuan Han (then age 33) was walking home from work. She reached the intersection of 72 Avenue and 126 Street in Surrey, British Columbia and pushed the pedestrian signal. When the white pedestrian signal light came on, she began walking across 72 Avenue, in the marked crosswalk. While she was in the middle of the crosswalk, she was struck by the vehicle driven by Ms. Chahal. Ms. Chahal indicated that she did not see Ms. Han until after the accident and did not remember slowing down or breaking prior to impact. As a result of the accident, Ms. Han suffered fractures of her left femur and right wrist for which she needed surgery. Furthermore, she continued to suffer from chronic pain in her right foot, left knee and thigh, neck, and back, and depression. She also claimed to have suffered a mild brain injury in the accident that is causing her memory and thinking difficulties.
Ms. Han hired a Surrey personal injury lawyer and sought an award of pain and suffering damages, past loss of earnings, future loss of earnings, costs of future care, and special damages for her injuries.
At trial, Ms. Chahan did not deny liability for the accident and admitted that Ms. Han was lawfully crossing the street. However, Ms. Chahal conceded that the extent of Ms. Han’s injuries were not as detrimental as Ms. Han claimed. Ms. Chahal also indicated that Ms. Han should be held contributorily negligent to the extent of 25% because she did not exercise due care in crossing the crosswalk at night by not making eye contact with Ms. Chahal before crossing or hesitating to step off the curb before making sure that it was safe to cross the road. The court denied Ms. Chahal’s argument and stated that Ms. Han was well away from the curb when she was struck and she was entitled to presume that Ms. Chahal would obey the law, stop at the intersection and grant Ms. Han the right of way before making a left turn. The court determined that Ms. Chahal was 100% at fault.
The court noted that Ms. Han’s injuries should have healed uneventfully and approached certain parts of her testimony with caution. When assessing damages, the court accepted Dr. Posthuma’s opinion. Dr. Posthuma is a psychologist and a neuropsychologist. His diagnosis was that Ms. Han did not suffer a brain injury as a result of the accident and even if she did, she recovered prior to Dr. Posthuma’s assessment. He also indicated that Ms. Han exaggerated the detriment of her emotional and physical well-being, although he did admit that she suffers from moderate depression.
The court did not deny that Ms. Han suffered injuries as a result of the accident and accepted that she continues to suffer significantly from the effects of the accident and awarded her the following damages:
- $140,000- non pecuniary damages for pain and suffering
- $100,000- past loss of earning capacity
- $200,000- future loss of earning capacity
- $17,140- cost of future care
- $5,772- special damages for medication and psychological treatments
