Why mega verdicts in autopilot car crashes might not reach Canada

It’s unlikely to happen here.

That’s one lawyer’s assessment of a multimillion-dollar U.S. jury verdict involving a car operating on autopilot that did not recognize a dead-end road junction and hit a parked vehicle, killing one pedestrian and seriously injuring another.

In early August, a Florida jury awarded $242.5 million to the surviving victim of a crash involving a Tesla travelling on autopilot that drove through an intersection at around 60 mph, and hit a parked car and its owners who were standing nearby. One pedestrian died and the surviving pedestrian sued both the driver and the carmaker, claiming the carmaker was also at fault. The jury found the autopilot system was partially responsible for the 2019 collision. Tesla has appealed the verdict.

The results would be different here because Canadian courts have set limits on jury awards for general damages for pain and suffering, and for punitive damages, that are significantly lower than what’s seen in U.S. civil courts, says Tim Crljenica, a partner at Thomas Gold Pettingill.

“There are limits on pain and suffering that were set by the Supreme Court in the 1980s, and the Supreme Court set a cap on general damages that has increased progressively with inflation,” he tells Canadian Underwriter. “But that maximum is currently around $460,000, and that’s the maximum a person can receive for pain and suffering.”

Related: How a $200+ million EV accident verdict could upend auto claims liability

If the circumstances of an accident in Canada mirrored those of the Florida case, a portion of the plaintiff’s suit, which hinged on his girlfriend being killed, would not move forward because the two were not spouses.

“The deceased’s parents or her siblings could sue for loss of guidance, care, and companionship under the Family Law Act. But even that would be limited, and would not surpass $1 million for her death,” he adds.

The plaintiff could still sue for his own injuries, care costs and loss of income. “To assess the plaintiff’s damages, we’d need the specifics of the injuries and care needs, but again, it’s not going to be approaching $242.5 million under Canadian law.”

In the event a Canadian jury did grant such an award, Crljenica says two things would likely happen.

CAIB New Edition 1.0 – a New Standard for Broker Education Image

Insights Paid Content

CAIB New Edition 1.0 – a New Standard for Broker Education

Preparing brokers to navigate an increasingly complex insurance landscape.

By 

Sponsor Image

First, the judge could refuse to enter that verdict. Once the judge received the jury’s decision, there would likely be a motion by the defendant that the award is excessive under Canadian law and that it must be reduced accordingly. “Judges retain the jurisdiction to alter a jury’s verdict,” he says.

In other news: Will online auto insurance sales replace brokers? A look at the risks

Second, if a judge said, ‘This is what the jury has decided. I’m going to enter the judgment,’ the defendant would be certain to file an appeal on the grounds that it exceeds the provincial and federal damages cap.

“It exceeds any sort of reasonable amount permissible under Canadian law when it comes to compensating individuals for serious injury,” Crljenica says.

“Also, most of the $242.5 million award was punitive damages, which are pretty rare in personal injury litigation in Canada. The highest personal injury damages award in Canada was in the $10 million to $15 million range — $200 million in punitive damages would certainly never be awarded in Canada.”

Cases where punitive damages may be awarded in personal injury litigation can include cases where an insurer denied an obviously meritorious claim — such as long-term disability — but ignored the medical evidence.

“There was a recent Ontario decision called Baker v. Blue Cross Insurance Company of Canada. It is the largest punitive damages award in Canadian history at $1.5 million, which the court of appeal upheld,” says Crljenica.

“Baker was a situation where there was lots of medical evidence to show that a woman had disabilities that prevented her from working. The jury found the insurer was essentially ignoring it…”

Phil Porado

Phil, an award-winning journalist with over 30 years of experience in financial topics, has been managing editor of Canadian Underwriter for more than three years.