Before the car accident, her teacher described her as a very bright student, in the top two per cent of her media-arts high school class in Burnaby, Canada, who dreamt of being a filmmaker or actress.
After the accident, Alissa Afonina, who has been awarded more than $1.5 million in damages due to a brain injury, was a very different girl and eventually ended up working as a dominatrix.
She showed no impulse control, could not carry through on tasks, became isolated and began to have outbursts and make inappropriate sexual comments, her British Columbia Supreme Court trial heard.
In his ruling on damages, Justice Joel Grove noted that the pre-accident Afonina was in some ways a typical girl, in some ways an atypical girl, someone who described herself as a “goth girl” with “artiste presentation.”
But all that changed in the wake of the August 2008 motor vehicle accident.
Afonina, who was about to enter Grade 12, her mother and her brother were passengers in a vehicle being driven by her mother’s former boyfriend, Peter Jansson.
Jansson’s Toyota ended up in the ditch. The judge concluded he was driving too fast in the wet road conditions and was therefore negligent.
Lawyers for Afonina argued that her decision to begin working as a dominatrix at some point prior to her trial last year showed a lack of “correct thinking” and was proof she’d taken an unnecessary risk due to a loss of cognitive function from a moderate traumatic brain injury.
The defendant’s lawyer argued that it was proof that the young woman could organize herself to maintain a modest level of employment income.
Groves said there was a bit of truth in both arguments.
“I believe that both the plaintiff and defendant can show that fact of Alissa’s work as a dominatrix supports the finding of some facts which support their ultimate view of the manifestations of the brain injuries as suffered by Alissa in the accident.”
The judge noted that Afonina had not acted to minimize her risks by implementing an alarm system or safety measures in her work as a dominatrix, evidence of a diminished judgment on her part and a factor supporting a theory of frontal lobe damage.
He said that it also showed some “residual” post-accident employment ability, being able to organize oneself to meet a deadline, to keep an appointment, to apparently collect money and use it to support herself.
The judge concluded that the brain injury for Afonina led to her being unable to cope normally and generate enough money to make a living.
The young woman had no ability to work full-time and might only qualify for entry-level jobs a few hours a day, such as basic food services industry employment, said the judge.
Without the injury, she’d have been capable of completing a college or university certificate of two years, he added.
But the judge said he did not accept her argument that she has no capacity to work.
Her damages award includes $825,000 for “future capacity loss,” $376,000 for cost of future care, $300,000 for pain and suffering and $23,000 for special damages.
Afonina made a claim for an inability to form “interdependent” relationships due to her isolation and sexual and general impulsivity - arguing that she was “damaged goods” - but the judge said those damages would be “too remote” and denied that category of damages.
2 comments:
Any paper on cause and effect has some particular structure. In an exposition cause and effect enter the event structure one by one, that is, they make up a vector of the occasions – one occasion is the reason for another occasion and they are picking up their qualities like a snowball influencing the following occasion to end up the reason for the previous. Such an element of eventfulness has been principally depicted and researched in writing and phonetics ponders, be that as it may, the kind of circumstances and end results at Essayforcollege turn out to be across the board in each circle of science.
I dare you to check this out!
Post a Comment