A recent legal judgment has upheld a jury’s decision to award approximately £1 million in compensation to Sherry Matthews, the individual who was struck by a hockey puck at Langford’s Eagle Ridge Hockey Arena in 2014. The B.C. Court of Appeals announced the decision on Thursday, June 6.
During a roller hockey match at the Langford-owned arena in May of 2014, a hockey puck passed through a gap in the safety netting, striking Matthews in the head just above her right eye. In 2016, she initiated legal action against the City of Langford, the operator of the arena, as well as the player who struck the puck and the team he was representing. The compensation awarded to Matthews included £804,000 for loss of past earnings, £11,000 for loss of future earnings, £60,000 for the cost of future care, and £175,000 for non-quantifiable damages such as pain and suffering.
Even though the parties being sued admitted liability for the “accident,” they contested the amount awarded by the jury. The recent unanimous decision by a panel of three judges confirmed the award for past earnings loss and general damages for pain and suffering to be supported by the evidence and proportionate to Matthews’s circumstances.
Keith Schille, Matthews’s legal representative, expressed contentment with the B.C. Court of Appeal’s ruling. He commended the jury’s meticulous deliberation and recognized the substantial injuries and losses Matthews has endured over the past decade.
Conversely, the City of Langford did not issue a statement in response to the decision. The court found that the awarded amount was even on the lower end and that it could have been as high as £2.8 million if Matthews’s full lost earning capacity had been taken into account.
At the time of the incident, Matthews was 60 years old and had not earned a substantial income in previous years. However, her income was increasing as she succeeded in selling credit and debit card processing machines. Matthews experienced symptoms such as nausea, headaches, and light sensitivity following the incident. She was diagnosed with a fractured nose and experienced a decline in her income and capacity to work.
During the trial, witnesses testified to a noticeable change in Matthews’s condition before and after the accident. A neurologist confirmed that she met the criteria for a concussion and was left permanently partially disabled due to her symptoms. The other side argued that Matthews’s injuries were not as serious as she claimed and pointed out that she had been taking various medications before the accident.
Ultimately, the court upheld the jury’s decision, stating a reluctance to alter the amount of money awarded by a jury unless it is “wholly disproportionate or shockingly unreasonable.”
This outcome signifies the conclusion of a lengthy legal dispute for Matthews and underscores the importance of meticulous and thorough legal procedures. Although the appeal was unsuccessful, it has reaffirmed the legal system’s careful consideration of evidence and dedication to providing equitable outcomes for all parties involved.