Consistency has to be one of the key factors of Canadian legal system. The fact that laws are applied to all fairly and with equal degree of severity is a triumph for us. It is generally expected that if two different judges have to decide on similar case, their outcome is likely to be similar. In the context of personal injury law, such consistency results in similar compensation being doled out to everyone. But is this consistency fair? Let’s discuss if age has anything to do with personal injury claim.
Different Pain – Similar Compensation
When two different persons suffer from similar personal injuries as a result of similar unfortunate events, their pains cannot be compared. The event, circumstances and injuries inflicted may be same but the trauma of two different persons is not similar. One person experiences a certain degree of pain. On the other hand, the pain of other person (mental and physical) cannot be compared to someone else. It may be unfair on the part of judges to deliver similar verdict or personal injury claim to two different persons.
That sounds easy in theory but becomes difficult to achieve in practical situation. The legal system has to be sensitive to the fact that two persons cannot have similar life circumstances. This fact becomes that much more important to consider in case of seniors. The impact of pain on senior citizens is manifold compared to the younger claimants.
Let’s consider an example to elucidate the subject matter. For instance, a 35 year old man and a 70 year old person have suffered similar personal injuries resulting from similar accidents. To straighten up the matters, let’s consider the cause of accident is also more or less similar – a car crash. Both persons are healthy before but develop chronic back pain after the accident. Both will go on to suffer the lower back pain for the rest of their natural lives.
Considering the senior has a life expectancy of 85 years, he will have to bear the pain for a period of 15 years. On the other hand, the 40 years man has to live with pain for the next 45 years. How can the judgment provide equal compensation to both the victims? In this case, the compensation to the 40 year man should be higher. On the other hand, the older man may be eligible for more compensation considering he cannot work and may be having other health issues in addition to the new found one.
On the face of it, it seems fair to compare the two. Throw in some other factors and the case becomes complex. Yet, this is the dilemma many Canadian courts face every day. Most of the times, the senior’s entitlement is greater due to the various other health and lifestyle factors. The impairment of movement in elderly makes them more prone to health risks.
It is appropriate to grant more compensation to seniors. But considering the above case of a young man being immobilized due to the accident, the legal system should take into account the life-long suffering. It is important to bear in mind that as age progresses, the pain will take away the pleasures form the life. Substantial impairment can lead to more loss compared to the compensation. The claim takes into account the young age and the ability to recover. In my view, the chances of recovery are an unfair guess and a bet on the healthcare quality.
Discrimination based on consistency should be uprooted from Canadian courts. Fair trial and case by case judgment should be the norm. Seniors do get unfair treatment in some cases. To abolish this, personal injury law overhaul is the call of the hour. Our lawyers focus on providing appropriate legal solutions and compensation as per the applicant’s situation keeping in mind myriad vital factors.
