30 Apr Plaintiff With Past Cocaine Addiction Sustains Injuries

The trial of Kirilenko v. Bowie, 2017 BCSC 2048, concerned the assessment of damages for injuries sustained by the Plaintiff, who was a cocaine addict at the time of the accident. The vehicle he was a passenger in made a left turn in front of an oncoming truck, leading to a collision. The Plaintiff sustained severe injuries in the collision, including internal injuries, nerve damage to his left leg and a brain injury.

The fact that the Plaintiff had a cocaine addiction prior to the accident was important. The evidence at trial was that prior to the accident the Plaintiff’s ability to function in day-to-day life was severely impaired by his cocaine abuse.

In quantifying the Plaintiff’s damages, the Court had to assess the range and probability of possible outcomes of the Plaintiff’s cocaine addiction, had the accident not occurred. What would his life have been like, but for the accident? Would he have gone on to therapy? Would his drug use issues have resolved?

The Court acknowledged that it was possible that, but for the accident, the Plaintiff may have sought professional help for his cocaine addiction. However, the timing of that eventuality was far from certain – as was his ability to have paid for a residential treatment program.

Unfortunately, neither the Plaintiff nor the Defendants tendered any expert evidence from specialists in addiction medicine, as to how difficult it is to overcome cocaine addiction, how responsive cocaine addiction is to treatment, the probabilities of relapse with and without professional treatment, and similar questions.

The Court took judicial notice that cocaine has the capacity to be highly addictive with heavy users such as the Plaintiff. If users attempt on their own to abstain or if they choose to undergo professional treatment, they face a significant long-term risk of relapse.

The Court’s assessment of non-pecuniary damages took into account factors such as the impairment of family, marital and social relationships, the impairment of physical and mental abilities, and loss of lifestyle. All of those facets of the Plaintiff’s life were affected by his injuries, but there was a real and substantial possibility that they would have been detrimentally impacted in any event, in varying degrees, as a consequence of his addiction.

The Court held that whatever award might be appropriate for a man of the Plaintiff’s age and station in life who had similar injuries, without a history of cocaine addiction, the Plaintiff’s award must be substantially reduced. Bearing in mind the foregoing considerations, the Court assessed the Plaintiff’s non-pecuniary loss at $200,000.