Is a plaintiff entitled to compensation for the cost of future care based on what is "reasonably necessary"?

British Columbia, Canada


The following excerpt is from Tull v Gillett, 2021 BCSC 724 (CanLII):

A plaintiff is entitled to compensation for the cost of future care based on what is “reasonably necessary” to restore her to her pre-accident health, in so far as that is possible: Gignac v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, 2012 BCCA 351 at paras. 29–30.

Other Questions


Is a plaintiff entitled to compensation for future care that is justified and reasonable? (British Columbia, Canada)
Is a plaintiff entitled to a future care award for the purposes of calculating future care costs? (British Columbia, Canada)
Is a plaintiff entitled to compensation for loss of future earning capacity? (British Columbia, Canada)
Is a plaintiff entitled to compensation for future loss of income as a result of a crumbling skull? (British Columbia, Canada)
Is Elliott entitled to all expenditures that are reasonably necessary to promote his mental and physical health in the future? (British Columbia, Canada)
Does a formal offer to settle a claim against a plaintiff be apportioned costs based upon division of liability based upon a division of costs based on division of liabilities? (British Columbia, Canada)
Is a plaintiff entitled to compensation for future losses that he has shown are a real and substantial possibility? (British Columbia, Canada)
Is a plaintiff entitled to an award for costs of future care for a plaintiff who was injured in a motor vehicle accident? (British Columbia, Canada)
Is it necessary for a plaintiff to prove that loss of future income is probable? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test for determining whether a plaintiff is entitled to full compensation for non-pecuniary damages? (British Columbia, Canada)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.