The appellants appealed a jury award for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal regarding the admissibility of lay evidence related to the respondent's claim for loss of future income as a hair colourist, finding it relevant and not prejudicial.
However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding general damages, finding the jury's award inordinately high, and substituted an award of $125,000.
The appeal was otherwise dismissed.
