What are the arguments raised by the trial judge in a motor vehicle accident case for damages for years lost by a plaintiff who is not injured but injured?

The second argument raised by the trial judge, and others, is the very real difficulty of proving claims with respect to future losses. In Canada, we are now committed to make awards for future losses despite this admitted difficulty in proof. That was settled by Andrews v. Grand and Toy, supra, where it was held that damages for the years lost by a living, but injured, plaintiff should be awarded despite the difficulty of establishing the quantum for such awards. The difficulty of proof of future “lost years” is just as great for living plaintiffs as it is for dead plaintiffs. Once one embarks on the risky voyage into the future, I see no justice in arbitrarily excluding one group of claimants.