What is the range of negative contingencies applied to the male earning table at the same time as the female earning table?

While adopting male earning tables, the trial judge in Gray v. Macklin also applied several negative contingencies, deducting 10 per cent to reflect the possibility that wage parity would not be achieved and at para. 203, deducting 20 per cent as a general contingency “to take into account labour force interruptions, early retirement, sickness, accident, career changes or unemployment.” No comment was made whether there was evidence to support this 20 per cent number or whether it was gender specific. The court described this negative contingency as a usual general contingency of life which was likely to be the common future of us all. This language suggests there was no gender specificity in the quantification, although one may query whether so high a percentage would have been applied to a male plaintiff.