Is a plaintiff entitled to claim that he has lost nothing as a result of his lifestyle change?

It follows that a defendant will not be permitted to tell a plaintiff whom he has injured that he has lost nothing because his post-accident situation is one which the defendant, or even society in general, may deem preferable. Here as elsewhere, the defendant must take his victim as he finds him. I therefore conclude that the plaintiff's loss of the lifestyle and activities which formerly gave him pleasure should be taken into account in assessing damages. At the same time, it must be born in mind that damages for non-pecuniary loss are not really compensatory in the sense of compensating for the loss of something of money value; the purpose of the awards is to substitute other amenties for those that have been lost: Lindal v. Lindal, supra. Account must also be taken of the fact that the plaintiff was not in the best physical condition before the accident, and there is a strong likelihood that even if it had not occurred, he would before too many years have found himself in a living situation similar to that in which he now finds himself.