I am often asked by clients
whether or not damages would be higher for people that are more senior - given
that they do not have many years to live. It is understandable that if one is
afflicted by a serious orthopaedic injury the remaining years of life may
not be that enjoyable. The courts in the past have been generous in formulating
pain and suffering damages f
or people who are in the latter half of their lives
by sometimes applying an informal “golden age doctrine”. It makes sense to the common client but any good lawyer would obviously take the position this theoretical
doctrine is not an easy argument. It is understandable that a person in their
advancing years may be more seriously afflicted by the impairment in movement and ranges of motion than
perhaps a person in their younger years. The counter argument by defence lawyers, which also makes sense, is that damages should not be paid out in excess because a person is
simply "not going to live long". The rationale is that if you have a 90 year old woman that falls and breaks her pelvis - the damages should not be in the same range as a 37 year old plaintiff - the money will simple be funnelled into the estate and gifted to a beneficiary who was not injured....but will benefit from the payout. I try and
stress that it is important to bear in mind that as one advances in life one’s
pleasures and activities particularly do become more limited with any substantial
impairment . Acitivites are limited and any type of movement which a person can
no longer undertake becomes all that more serious on that account. How can it not be?
Therefore you can assess appropriate pain and
suffering awards from two different perspectives. So what do you do? The argument would be
presented by medical evidence and it would be up to a jury to decide which
argument to accept. We would normally argue that if there is no pre-exisitng injury then an
orthopaedic injury would obviously interfere substantially with a senior citizen’s
enjoyment of life during his or her remaining years. However when comparing
awards, it is understandable that one must give way to the factor of age and
that a younger person will suffer the loss of amenities over a much longer
period of time. The argument therefore is
clear from two perspectives and the answer to this quandry I would think is
that it depends on the injury, whether anything is pre-exisinting, and the activities that the plaintiff
participated in before the date of accident. If there is a plethora of activities such as
volunteer work, work at the legions, golf, walking with friends, and anything
else to do with staying fit and healthy than perhaps the damages may be
affected to a certain degree in comparison to the general range of damages for
that same injury. If you are plagued with pre-existing debilitating conditions - the compensation for pain and suffering will be reduced accordingly.
We are personal injury lawyers in
Hamilton, personal injury lawyers in Burlington,
personal injury lawyers in Oakville and personal
injury lawyers in Milton.
If you are an elderly person that
has been injured by the fault of someone else, or if your loved one is an
elderly person that has been injured by the fault of someone else, please do
not hesitate to contact the law offices of Haber and Associates and I would be
pleased to help answer any questions that you may have.
Matt Lalande