Where evidence discloses multiple possible future care arrangements for a brain-injured plaintiff, the court must not adopt one model as a certainty but must balance competing possibilities and reflect their respective probabilities in the award, applying Malec v JC Hutton. An award of $200,000 for pain, suffering and loss of amenities for a plaintiff with severe brain injury, impaired motor skills, cognitive deficits, and significant scarring was excessive by $50,000 when compared with comparable awards in severe brain injury and tetraplegia/paraplegia cases.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 5 later cases that cite this judgment.