29 Jun Loss of Homemaking Capacity After Motor Vehicle Accident

The Plaintiff in Hauk v. Shatzko, 2020 BCSC 344, was the passenger in a vehicle involved in a significant accident. The vehicle she was in ran a red light and was t-boned by another vehicle. The Plaintiff suffered soft-tissue injuries and headaches as a result.

As part of the lawsuit, the Plaintiff made a claim for the loss of homemaking capacity, which some refer to as future homemaking costs.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal has reaffirmed that a person can be compensated for a true loss of homemaking capacity, as if it were the loss of an asset, regardless of whether the replacement services used to value the loss are actually purchased.

Prior to the accident, the Plaintiff was responsible for all of the homemaking activities and the majority of yard work.  After the accident, she was unable to tolerate heavier cleaning demands such as cleaning bathtubs, vacuuming, mopping floors, cleaning windows, etc. She was also unable to tolerate much of the yard work, especially repetitive activities above the shoulder. The Plaintiff had not utilized any hired help to maintain her home and yard. Instead, her husband had significantly increased his contributions. The Plaintiff was asking for an award of approximately $85,000 for future homemaking and yard maintenance services.

The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (“ICBC”) suggested that the Plaintiff could easily manage many tasks by pacing herself appropriately. Their expert suggested that the Plaintiff would benefit from nominal homemaking assistance for six months only, at a one-time cost of $780.  It surprised the judge that although ICBC supported the Plaintiff’s recommendation regarding yard maintenance services, they made no offer of financial assistance for that or bi-annual help with the heavier aspects of spring and fall cleaning.

It was not clear to the judge why ICBC did not offer any amount for loss of homemaking capacity in their final submissions, particularly since their own expert saw a need for this. An award for loss of homemaking capacity was clearly supported by the evidence. The only issue was quantum.

The judge expected the Plaintiff’s condition to improve to the point that she would generally be able to resume her regular homemaking activities. However, he decided that it was fair and reasonable to make a loss of homemaking capacity award because the Plaintiff would continue to require significant homemaking assistance while she began to tackle the various treatment recommendations of the medical experts, and then from time to time during future flare ups.  She would also require assistance with heavier spring and fall homemaking, and yard maintenance tasks for the foreseeable future.

Taking all of the contingencies into account, the judge awarded the Plaintiff $40,000 for her loss of homemaking capacity.