IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

Date: 20110407

Docket: M084889

Registry:
Vancouver

Between:

Beverly Perry

Plaintiff

And

Thomas Gabriel
Perry, Myrtle Mary Perry, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of
British Columbia and Yellowhead Road & Bridge (Fort George) Ltd.

Defendants

– and –

Docket: M103284

Registry:
Vancouver

Between:

Beverly Perry

Plaintiff

And

Her Majesty the
Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia, HMC Services Inc., Cole
Thomas Frank, Michelle Diane Frank, and Mary Anne Perry

Defendants

Before:
The Honourable Mr. Justice Melnick

Reasons for Judgment

[1]            
This is an assessment of damages for personal injuries claimed by the
plaintiff, Beverly Perry (“Ms. Perry”), arising from two motor vehicle
accidents.

[2]            
Liability was admitted by the remaining defendants in each of the two actions,
which were heard together.

I.        Preliminary

[3]            
Ms. Perry discontinued her action against the defendants Yellowhead
Road & Bridge (Fort George) Ltd. in M084889; against HMC Services Inc.,
Cole Thomas Frank and Michelle Diane Frank in M103284; and against Her Majesty
the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia in both actions.

II.       Background

[4]            
Ms. Perry is presently 56 years of age. She is of aboriginal
ancestry and is a member of the Lake Babine Nation whose territory is in the
Burns Lake region. Vancouver, however, has been her principal residence for most
of her adult life.

[5]            
Ms. Perry’s life has been difficult. As a child and as an adult she
suffered various forms of sexual, physical and mental abuse. She has had
serious substance abuse addictions, including alcohol and heroin, over a number
of years. Notwithstanding that, in the years immediately before the first motor
vehicle accident in 2007, she had managed to become clean and sober and
completed her Grade 12 equivalency. She was engaged in certain aboriginal activities
relating to her band, notably updating a list of members and contacting them
with respect to certain treaty negotiations. She did some other volunteer work,
was learning the art of Reiki healing from one of her sisters, and worked for a
short time (at a call centre) for about eight or nine months (she quit that job
for what she felt was a principled reason).

[6]            
In short, Ms. Perry’s life prior to the first accident was not
characterized by significant achievement by most community standards. However,
she maintained that prior to the first accident she had achieved, and was
continuing to achieve, a level of success in life that, for her, was positive
and fulfilling relative to where she had been most of her life. That is, she
had a good quality of life with the prospect of some employment and the
capacity to enjoy her life.

[7]            
The defence takes a more negative view of Ms. Perry’s prospects
before the first accident. Defence counsel stressed her then ongoing medical
complaints as catalogued in her family doctor’s chart and her reliance on a
disability pension, which was very moderately augmented by the brief time she
worked at the call centre.

[8]            
Ms. Perry was on disability pension for arthritis problems related
to her feet from a bunion operation that had not been successful, because of
substance abuse issues and, possibly, because she suffered from post traumatic
stress disorder (“PTSD”). While Ms. Perry was apparently still receiving
the disability pension at the time of the first accident, she maintains that
she then did not experience symptoms related to PTSD.

III.       The Motor
Vehicle Accidents

1.       February 6, 2007

[9]            
On February 6, 2007, Ms. Perry was a passenger in the right rear
seat of a 1990 Dodge Durango owned by her sister Myrtle Mary Perry and driven by
her brother Thomas Gabriel Perry. Ms. Perry’s mother, Jessie Perry, was
seated in the front passenger seat. The family was driving from Burns Lake to
Vancouver when, approximately 10 km south of Prince George, the vehicle went
out of control and left the roadway. Damage to the Durango was approximately
$7,800. It is Ms. Perry’s recollection that she, her mother and her brother
were suspended for some time from the overturned vehicle’s seat belts. She
recalls that she was pulled from the vehicle from the sunroof (photos of the
damaged vehicle show that it did not have a sunroof). There is a photo of the
windshield, however, which shows that a large rectangle was cut from it (apparently
by a rescue crew). The vehicle came to rest on the passenger side, so she may
have been removed from the door or window of the door on the rear driver’s
side.

[10]        
Ms. Perry said in evidence that the experience of this accident was
traumatic and that she was very concerned for the well-being of both her
brother and her mother prior to them being removed from the vehicle.

[11]        
After the accident, Ms. Perry was taken with her mother in an
ambulance to a hospital in Prince George, but she sat in the front passenger
seat beside the driver. No X-rays were taken of her at the hospital, which, she
said, upset her. She, her brother and her mother returned to Vancouver by air
as Ms. Perry did not want to go back into a motor vehicle.

[12]        
Ms. Perry claims that she has suffered unremitting neck, leg and
back pain since this accident. As well, she still suffers from headaches for
which, she says, she still takes Tylenol 3 or Extra Strength Tylenol. She says
that she has lost 25 pounds from having lost her appetite as she finds it hard
to cook. Neither 40 physiotherapy treatments nor acupuncture treatments have
helped to any extent. She did do certain exercises prescribed for her by a
physiotherapist, but clearly did not do so with any regularity and no longer
does them.

[13]        
Ms. Perry described a generally reduced level of energy since this
accident, as well as a fear of going into motor vehicles (although she has done
so since that accident – at least until the second accident). She also
described being nervous just being a pedestrian.

[14]        
Further, Ms. Perry noted having nightmares and flashbacks to this
accident, as well as a poor sleep pattern. She also said that she had become
unsociable with a “terrible mood” which, she maintained, led to the break-up of
her relationship with Abbas Fattah. Mr. Fattah confirmed this in his
evidence.

2.       February 2, 2009

[15]        
The second accident occurred on February 2, 2009. Ms. Perry was
again en route from Burns Lake to Vancouver after attending a service for a
deceased family member. On this occasion, she was in the rear seat of a 2002
Jeep Grand Cherokee driven by her sister Mary Anne Perry. Her mother was in the
front passenger seat.

[16]        
While approaching Quesnel on Highway 97, the Grand Cherokee slid on an
icy patch and struck another vehicle. The Grand Cherokee sustained $5,800 in
damage. The photographs of the vehicle depict what I would characterize as
moderate damage to the front end. The hood is bent back and the front grill
appears to have been pushed back somewhat. The radiator was damaged. Mary Anne
Perry drove back to Vancouver, but Ms. Perry refused to accompany her. She
said in evidence that she did not want to ride with anyone as she was
“petrified”.

[17]        
Ms. Perry described herself as being “banged up” in this second
accident, but she did not suffer any specific physical injury that can be
attributed to it. She does attribute to it some exacerbation of the various symptoms
she says she had from the first accident. She referred specifically to having a
swollen ankle that caused her to stay in bed for a while.

[18]        
Most of Ms. Perry’s complaints from the second accident appear to
focus on the psychological consequences respecting her mood: closing herself
off from her family and others; having low energy so that she is unable to
clean and cook; losing control; getting angry and “weepy”.

[19]        
 Notably, she claims that she is suffering from PTSD and chronic pain as
a result of these accidents.

IV.      Medical Opinions

[20]        
Dr. Arthur Edamura (“Dr. Edamura”) is Ms. Perry’s current
family doctor. He has been treating her since January 2006. Ms. Perry was
initially seen in the Prince George Hospital emergency ward and subsequently,
on February 8, 2007, by Dr. Edamura’s locum, a Dr. Rowat.

[21]        
Dr. Edamura saw Ms. Perry for the first time after the
accident on February 16, 2007. In his opinion letter of June 13, 2008, Dr. Edamura
observed that Ms. Perry had a neck and back strain, leg contusion, PTSD,
and pulled abdominal muscles as a result of the motor vehicle accident. He
prescribed Tylenol 3 and Prozac. He further noted that prior to the first
accident Ms. Perry had had blood in her urine, but, in his opinion, no
other similar problems to those observed by him on February 16. He continued to
treat Ms. Perry through to June 13, 2008, at which time he noted that,
although improved, she still required ongoing therapy and that she “relapses when
strained.”

[22]        
Dr. Edamura provided a further medical report on October 23, 2009,
following the second accident. He first saw Ms. Perry following the second
accident on February 6, 2009. At that time, he diagnosed neck strain, shoulder
and feet contusions, and headaches. He prescribed Tylenol 3 and Naprosyn at
that time. As he had done in his first report, Dr. Edamura chronicled his
observations of Ms. Perry on her roughly monthly visits to him. On one
occasion, October 2, 2009, he noted that Ms. Perry had reported that she
did not ride in vehicles driven by relatives and friends because she was afraid
she would scream at them to watch out. In his report, he noted that this was
“(d)ue to her PTSD”.

[23]        
Dr. Edamura’s opinion as of October 23, 2009, was that Ms. Perry,
a “previously well native activist and healer” was injured in the two accidents
and that she then remained “partially disabled in that she can only work part
time due to physical neck and back pain and psychological post traumatic stress
disorder”. He also noted that Ms. Perry had undergone various therapies
but still required analgesics and further physiotherapy, exercises and
counselling.

[24]        
In cross-examination, defence counsel observed that Dr. Edamura
noted “PTSD” on his initial intake data sheet dated January 10, 2006, under the
heading “Emotional”. When it was suggested to Dr. Edamura that Ms. Perry
reported that to him as part of her intake history, Dr. Edamura said he
specifically remembered filling in “PTSD” on this form after the first accident.
He maintained that he had not recorded that notation in January 2006, although
he apparently did not record any other updated information respecting Ms. Perry
after the January 2006 creation of the document. Defence counsel suggested that
it was improbable that Dr. Edamura’s evidence was correct in this respect,
particularly given that the entry in question was in the same ink colour and
script size as the other entries.

[25]        
I have some sympathy with the position of the defence on this point,
particularly as it appears from the evidence that Ms. Perry had
experienced PTSD in the past. I conclude that Dr. Edamura’s recollection
is probably incorrect as to when he recorded the entry respecting PTSD. That
said, the entry of a history of PTSD does not of itself demonstrate that as of
the date of entry Ms. Perry’s life was impacted in any significant way by
the PTSD; however, it was clearly something medically significant to Ms. Perry
in that she reported it to Dr. Edamura for entry on his new patient data
sheet.

[26]        
Dr. Edamura also agreed that it was only Ms. Perry’s
self-report that informed his notation from September 1, 2009, in his second
report, that she was able to work only one-quarter time as a native activist because
she was unable to sit for longer periods. In fact (as perhaps might be
expected), most of what Dr. Edamura noted as restrictions on Ms. Perry’s
activities were based on her self-reports or his observations of what she
demonstrated from time to time were limitations on her flexibility.

[27]        
Dr. Rhonda Shuckett (“Dr. Shuckett”), a rheumatologist,
authored a medical report and opinion dated July 29, 2008. She assessed Ms. Perry
on July 25, 2008, about one and a half years after the first accident. At that
time, Ms. Perry reported to Dr. Shuckett that prior to the first
accident she had “a bit of intermittent vague neck and back pain as well as
rare headaches”. She reported that these symptoms were minimal and did not have
a major impact on her life.

[28]        
As of the date of her examination, Dr. Shuckett diagnosed headaches
resulting from neck pain with some migraine features, musculo-ligamentous and
zygapophyseal joint capsular injury of the neck with significant decreased
range of neck motion, myofascial pain syndrome of the neck and shoulder girdle
region, impingement syndrome of the left shoulder with some acromioclavicular
joint strain, and some mechanical low back pain likely musculo-ligamentous.

[29]        
Dr. Shuckett noted that Ms. Perry had weak hand grips that
could reflect the myofascial pain syndrome, but agreed in cross-examination
that this could have been the result of decreased effort on the part of Ms. Perry
– that is, malingering. Dr. Shuckett could not provide a mechanism relating
to the accident for the leg, shin and heel pain, which Ms. Perry reported
were a consequence of the accident. Dr. Shuckett was not convinced that
those reported symptoms were due to the accident, notwithstanding that Ms. Perry
had reported them in the hospital emergency room right after the first
accident.

[30]        
Ms. Perry’s medical records for a three to five year period prior
to the first accident were not available to Dr. Shuckett although, she noted
in her 2008 report, it would have been of assistance to her to have them. In
the absence of such records, she noted that Ms. Perry’s “diagnoses are
ascribable to injuries from the MVA”. As of the date of her opinion, she noted
that there was room for more improvement in the next year, but cautioned that Ms. Perry
fell into the subset of patients whose injuries did not resolve in the first 18
months after a motor vehicle accident. Dr. Shuckett prescribed Flexeril to
assist with the muscle spasm that Ms. Perry had reported were affecting
her sleep. Ms. Perry had told Dr. Shuckett that her preference was
not to be on medications.

[31]        
In cross-examination, Dr. Shuckett noted that she had not been
asked to update her prognosis of 2008. She noted that Ms. Perry had been a
“somewhat vague historian” and was neither teary nor upset during her
examination. Ms. Perry did report that she was irritable, moody and
depressed, but did not say that she suffered from anxiety nor did she mention
panic attacks. Dr. Shuckett agreed that the hand grip test results were
surprisingly low and that she could not rule out sub-optimal effort on the part
of Ms. Perry in both the active and passive abduction (raising her arms)
tests.

[32]        
Dr. Stephen Anderson (“Dr. Anderson”) is a psychiatrist whose
report, dated November 24, 2010, reports on his examination of Ms. Perry
of November 17, 2010. It was Dr. Anderson’s opinion that, while Ms. Perry
had intermittent neck and back pain and perhaps PTSD symptoms related to
childhood trauma prior to the first accident, she would not have developed what
he described as a constellation of physical, cognitive and emotional
difficulties had she not been injured in the two accidents. He stated that
emotional factors were playing a significant role in her care and that she
likely has chronic pain disorder associated with psychological factors (anxiety
and depression).

[33]        
As to Ms. Perry’s general medical condition, Dr. Anderson deferred
to physical medicine practitioners. He added that she has chronic fatigue, and
concentration and memory difficulties due to emotional factors. He noted that
she had PTSD of mild to moderate severity, which he believed she developed
shortly following the first accident. He also understood that these symptoms
had worsened after the second accident. Dr. Anderson’s understanding as to
Ms. Perry’s PTSD symptoms arising principally from the two accidents was apparently
based on the diagnosis of PTSD recorded by Dr. Edamura shortly after the
first accident, Dr. Edamura’s chart, and his interview of Ms. Perry
in November 2010.

[34]        
Dr. Anderson described his prognosis as “guarded” from a
psychiatric point of view. He stated:

Ms. Perry has not been treated with psychotherapy to
date and a better understanding of her long-term prognosis will become apparent
once the above recommendations have been put into place. However, the longer
psychiatric disorders last the less likely they are to respond to treatment. Ms. Perry
has had significant PTSD symptoms for over three and a half years. She will
likely continue to have anxiety in automobiles despite further treatment and
the passage of time. As long as Ms. Perry has chronic pain and functional
limitations, she will also likely continue to have depressive symptoms. As long
as Ms. Perry has chronic pain, anxiety, fatigue and insomnia her cognitive
functioning will also likely be affected.

Despite further treatment Ms. Perry
will likely remain emotionally vulnerable and at risk of deteriorating in
future if she is exposed to further trauma. She will remain at increased risk
of developing PTSD in (sic) and she will be at increased risk of developing a
worsening of her depression if her pain worsens as she ages or if she is
exposed to other psychosocial stressors.

[35]        
Dr. Anderson suggested that Ms. Perry enrol in a comprehensive
multidisciplinary pain clinic, which, in his opinion, would not likely lead to
a marked reduction of her pain, but would teach her coping strategies and
prevent her pain from being the primary focus of her life. He suggested a five
to six week program.

[36]        
In cross-examination, Dr. Anderson agreed that Ms. Perry is a
vague and poor historian. He said that she is mostly vague about dates and
chronology, not about flashbacks or her being abused.

[37]        
Dr. Anderson stressed that the PTSD Ms. Perry described to him
was about “the car accident,” not the abuse. It surprised him to learn that she
had not held a driver’s licence since 1997. Had he known, he said, he would
have questioned her further about that area as perhaps it was due to drinking
or drug problems such that her life was suspended. He also agreed that he
understood that the PTSD she was experiencing had followed the accident. He
observed that her medical records for the year prior to the first accident
showed no entry for any psychological illness. PTSD and depression are
major depressive disorders that he would have expected to be noted if they had
been present, he said. He also noted that irritability can be a symptom of PTSD.
Dr. Anderson also appears to have relied on Ms. Perry’s report to him
that she had not suffered any PTSD symptoms relating to her childhood sexual
abuse for a couple of years before the first accident. He confirmed that his
finding of her having cognitive difficulty was based on what she told him, not
on any objective testing. Her alcohol and drug use could have affected her
cognitive ability, he said.

[38]        
Dr. Anderson conceded that Ms. Perry had a pre-accident
history of chronic fatigue.

[39]        
Defence put forward the chart of Dr. Tung Duc Nguyen, Ms. Perry’s
family doctor, which covered a four year period between December 2002 and
December 2006. I cannot rely on any diagnosis or opinions in that chart, of
course, but note that the complaints recorded were largely, although not
entirely, of matters other than the type of complaints recorded by Dr. Edamura
following the first accident.

[40]        
In a “Patient Entrance Form” dated January 24, 2003, for a Dr. Lai,
Ms. Perry described her reason for consulting the doctor as “aching joint,
back pain, neck pain, arms, fingers, legs, feet”. She noted that she then
suffered from osteoporosis, arthritis and allergies as well as nerves, fatigue,
sleeping difficulty, asthma and sinus conditions. On a diagram of the human
body, she placed marks on virtually every part of the body to indicate areas of
pain or “unusual feeling”.

V.       Discussion

[41]        
Ms. Perry is a person who had had a number of challenging health
issues prior to the first accident. Those issues included PTSD, which related
to her childhood abuse, and problems with her feet and legs. She sometimes
suffered from depressive episodes and had a history of alcohol and heroin
abuse. She had multiple areas of pain that she experienced at least as far back
as 2003. I conclude that, prior to the first accident, she was a person of some
fragility with respect to both her physical and emotional health, likely the seeds
of which were sown by her tragic childhood and exacerbated by her alcohol and
drug use.

[42]        
That said, Ms. Perry, in the few years prior to the accident, had
made real progress by putting her addictions behind her and, to a certain
extent at least, engaging in life through education, volunteer work and a small
amount of employment. She was, however, what I would describe as a “thin-skull”
case: more at risk for emotional and psychological trauma than a normal person
without Ms. Perry’s medical history would be: Athey v. Leonati,
[1996] 3 S.C.R. 458. See also: Hussack v. School District No. 33
(Chilliwack), 2009 BCSC 852 at para. 143; Yoshikawa
v. Yu (1996), 21 B.C.L.R. (3d) 318 (C.A.) at para. 19. Thus, while
the average otherwise healthy individual involved in the same type of accidents
that Ms. Perry experienced may have suffered similar physical injury, that
person would not be at the same risk of suffering the same psychological damage
as Ms. Perry.

[43]        
I am satisfied that Ms. Perry suffers from chronic pain, which is
largely attributed to the first accident, and to a minor extent to the second
accident. She was not without pain and physical problems before these accidents
and the defendants are not responsible for the extent to which those symptoms
were already symptomatic: Athey at para. 35.

[44]        
Ms. Perry was probably more disposed to PTSD than a normal healthy
person without her history of it. I am satisfied that, just before the first
accident, she was asymptomatic of PTSD previously related to her childhood
abuse. Subsequent to the accidents, she had the disorder with respect to a fear
of being in vehicles. In a sense, though, because she lives in a city and has
not had a driver’s licence since 1997, that PTSD has not impacted her life as
much as it might have if, for example, she was a person who relied on driving a
vehicle either because of her employment or because she lived in a remote rural
location.

[45]        
I am also satisfied that she probably has chronic pain disorder, which
is attributable for the most part to the first accident, a very small extent to
the second accident, and a larger minority extent to her past medical history.
I would attribute these as follows:

[46]        
As far as the PTSD is concerned, while Ms. Perry had past
experience with PTSD, that just made her more susceptible to her current PTSD.
The former PTSD related to a completely different trauma, was asymptomatic, and
cannot be said to be otherwise contributing to her present experience of it.
Thus, I would attribute her current experience of it as follows:

[47]        
Ms. Perry suffered a number of soft tissue injuries in the first
accident, and to a minor extent to the second one. Again, I would attribute
those 90% to the first accident and 10% to the second accident.

[48]        
Similarly, Ms. Perry now has a major depressive disorder, which is
largely attributable to the first accident. However, here I find her history of
depression was symptomatic at the time of the first accident and cannot be
ignored in assessing how she came to where she is now. I would make the same
allocation for her depressive disorder that I did for her chronic pain
disorder.

VI.      Damages

1.       Non-pecuniary

[49]        
Counsel for Ms. Perry suggests non-pecuniary damages of $100,000 to
$110,000 based on the decisions in Houston v. Kine, 2010 BCSC 1289 ($110,000);
Jokhadar v. Dehkhodaei, 2010 BCSC 1643 ($90,000); Poirier v. Aubrey,
2010 BCCA 266 ($100,000); Zen v. Readhead, 2011 BCSC 190 ($110,000); and
Jackson v. Lai, 2007 BCSC 1023 ($100,000).

[50]        
Counsel for the defendants suggests a more modest assessment of $30,000
to $40,000 non-pecuniary damages based on Runghen v. Elkhalil, 2009 BCSC
467 ($40,000); Salvatierra v. Vancouver (City), 2008 BCSC 537 ($45,000);
and Chamberlain v. Giles, 2008 BCSC 171 ($50,000).

[51]        
Ms. Perry has several health issues, a large portion of which are
attributable to these two accidents. Taking into account, as I have, that some
of her current health situation is attributable to her past medical problems, I
asses her overall non-pecuniary damages at $85,000. The seriousness of Ms. Perry’s
injuries and her guarded prognosis are more in line with the authorities
suggested by counsel for Ms. Perry.

2.       Past Wage Loss

[52]        
I am not satisfied that it is probable that Ms. Perry would have
been gainfully employed but for these accidents. Her job experience at a call
centre shortly before the accident was an anomaly in her otherwise lengthy
history of relying on social insurance and disability benefits. She quit the
call centre job. The “employment” related to tracing band members was, I find,
dependent on her sister being in a position of tribal leadership, which was not
the case for very long; and, in any event, I am not convinced that Ms. Perry
had any real prospect of ongoing employment from that source. Nor am I
convinced she would have qualified, by now, as a Reiki healer so as to earn
past income.

[53]        
I appreciate that Ms. Perry was entitled to earn up to $500 a month
over her social insurance benefits, but I find it improbable that she would
have done so. I would not make any award for past wage loss.

3.       Loss of Future
Earning Capacity

[54]        
It is possible that, at some point in the future, and without the
injuries of the accidents, Ms. Perry may have qualified as a Reiki healer;
although she did not display strong motivation to complete the last stage of
that course of instruction. She has gone through most of her adult life without
being remuneratively employed. On the other hand, in the few years prior to the
first accident, she had made significant strides in getting her life together.
She did have some small employment income just before the first accident. It is
entirely possible that in the nine years remaining before she turns 65, she may
have had other employment possibilities. However, I conclude that she is
unlikely to be able to take advantage of any such opportunities now. Thus, I
would award her $20,000 for loss of earning capacity.

4.       Loss of
Housekeeping Capacity

[55]        
Ms. Perry has not hired any housekeeping assistance because she
cannot afford it. However, she has a diminished capacity to care for her home
in terms of cleaning and cooking. A modest award for such diminished capacity
is in order here as a separate head of damages: McTavish v. MacGillivray, 2000
BCCA 164 at paras. 63, 68-69. I quantify Ms. Perry’s damages for past
and prospective housekeeping assistance at $10,000.

5.       Cost of Future
Care

[56]        
Dr. Anderson recommended that Ms. Perry attend a five week
chronic pain program. She has not been particularly good about performing the exercises
recommended for her by her physiotherapist. Counsel agree that the cost of such
a program (for example, at OrionHealth – The Vancouver Pain Clinic) is $13,560.
Counsel for the defendants suggested that if I am inclined to make such an
award that I make it contingent upon Ms. Perry actually attending, given
her spotty record of performing exercises. However, I am satisfied that Ms. Perry
is at the stage where she is willing and anxious to get the type of treatment
such a pain centre can provide. I award her $13,560 for the purpose of
attending such a program. I do so without any conditions other than expressing
to her that I expect her to attend and to participate fully in the program,
which is for her benefit.

[57]        
I would also award Ms. Perry $4,420 for continued psychological
counselling with Chuck Jung and Associates or a similar counsellor. I am
satisfied that the ongoing counselling presently undertaken by Ms. Perry
will have important ongoing benefits for her.

[58]        
I would not make an additional award for a kinesiologist and gym pass. The
pain program will, I trust, provide Ms. Perry with good direction on how
to deal with her pain with appropriate physical exercises and she should not be
getting conflicting advice from anyone else.

[59]        
Thus, I award Ms. Perry a total of $17,980 for future care.

6.       Special Damages

[60]        
I award Ms. Perry special damages in the amount of $949 for the
treatments and medication (and one taxi service) particularized on the schedule
of special damages in Exhibit 1.

VII.     Summary

[61]        
In summary, I award Ms. Perry judgment against the defendants
Thomas Gabriel Perry (or perhaps more properly the Estate of the late Thomas
Gabriel Perry) and Myrtle Mary Perry for 90% of the damages assessed, and
against Mary Anne Perry for 10% of the damages assessed, all of which are
summarized below:

[62]        
Unless there is reason for me to receive submissions on costs, I award Ms. Perry
her costs on Scale B.

“Melnick
J.”