$2.3M Personal Injury Result — Trainor v. DeArcos

personal injury result

When evaluating personal injury result, few cases demonstrate the stakes more clearly than Trainor v. DeArcos, 2025 NBCA 131. In December 2025, the Mike Murphy Law Group secured approximately $2.3 million in damages for a young woman severely injured in a car accident — overturning a trial decision that had awarded just $325,000. The New Brunswick Court of Appeal unanimously agreed that critical legal errors had reduced the original award to a fraction of what the evidence supported.

Michael B. Murphy, KC and Shane M. Scott of the Mike Murphy Law Group represented the plaintiff, Meghan Trainor, at the nine-day trial and argued the successful appeal. This decision stands among the largest personal injury results ever recorded in the region.

The Accident and the Injuries

On March 27, 2014, Meghan Trainor was a 20-year-old passenger in her mother’s vehicle when another driver struck them. The at-fault driver admitted liability, but contested the scope of damages.

The collision fractured Ms. Trainor’s right heel bone and caused injuries to her chest and hand. She developed post-traumatic stress disorder with recurring nightmares about the crash — injuries that would ultimately contribute to the personal injury result. Over the following months and years, her condition deteriorated significantly. She developed chronic pain throughout her body, a jaw condition known as temporomandibular disorder (TMD) caused by stress-related teeth grinding, and underwent multiple additional surgeries on her right leg.

Before the accident, Ms. Trainor was working as a waitress and planning to attend community college. After the accident, she was unable to sustain employment, eventually needed a cane to walk, and remained dependent on her parents for daily care more than a decade later.

Why the Trial Award Was Wrong: Three Errors Identified

The trial judge awarded approximately $325,000 after accepting that the accident factually caused all of Ms. Trainor’s injuries. However, the judge concluded that the chronic pain, TMD, and additional surgeries were not legally compensable — finding them too “remote” from the collision.

The Mike Murphy Law Group identified three significant legal errors and brought the case before the New Brunswick Court of Appeal to pursue a better personal injury result.

The Foreseeability Error

Canadian negligence law requires an objective test for foreseeability. The question is whether a person of “ordinary fortitude” could foreseeably suffer the general type of injury — not whether this specific plaintiff’s individual reaction was predictable. The Supreme Court of Canada established this standard in its leading decisions on causation.

The trial judge focused on how Ms. Trainor’s personal mental health history contributed to the development of her chronic pain. The Court of Appeal held this was a textbook error: applying a subjective standard instead of the objective test. Chronic pain, jaw disorders, and leg injuries after a motor vehicle collision are not unusual or far-fetched. The foreseeability analysis should have stopped once localized pain was acknowledged as foreseeable.

The Thin Skull vs. Crumbling Skull Error

Ms. Trainor had pre-existing mental health conditions — depression in partial remission and borderline personality disorder — that were stable and well-managed at the time of the accident. Her psychiatrist described her as stable just 13 days before the collision.

The trial judge characterized her as a “crumbling skull” plaintiff and used that label to deny recovery entirely. The Court of Appeal found two problems with this. First, even under the crumbling skull doctrine, courts cannot bar recovery outright — they can only reduce the award. Second, and more fundamentally, Ms. Trainor was a “thin skull” plaintiff. Her conditions were latent and managed, not actively deteriorating. Under the thin skull principle, the at-fault driver must take the victim as they find them and pay full damages.

The Unsupported 40% Discount

The trial judge applied a 40% discount to future loss of earnings based on Ms. Trainor’s pre-existing vulnerabilities. The Court of Appeal found this was based on a misunderstanding of the actuarial evidence. The actuary had already incorporated general disablement rates into her calculations. The judge effectively double-counted the risk of disability, imposing an additional 40% reduction that no expert evidence supported.

The Personal Injury Result: $2.3 Million on Appeal

The Court of Appeal unanimously set aside all three errors and ordered the defendant to pay damages based on the trial judge’s own provisional assessments. The final award of approximately $2.3 million included compensation for general damages, past and future loss of earnings, past and future loss of housekeeping capacity, future care costs, and management fees.

This personal injury result — roughly seven times the original trial award — reflects the importance of identifying and correcting legal errors through the appellate process to achieve a fair personal injury result. Without the appeal, Ms. Trainor would have received $325,000 for injuries that the evidence demonstrated warranted over $2.3 million.

The Mike Murphy Law Group also secured a $3.3 million decision in Allen v. Doiron just months later — making these back-to-back results the two largest personal injury decisions in the region’s history.

The Court of Appeal’s analysis in Trainor v. DeArcos rested on well-established legal principles governing personal injury claims in Canada. Understanding these principles is essential for anyone pursuing a personal injury result in a claim involving chronic pain, psychological injury, or pre-existing conditions.

The Two-Step Causation Inquiry

Canadian negligence law requires a plaintiff to establish causation at two levels. First, factual causation must be proven on a balance of probabilities using the “but for” test — a foundational requirement in any personal injury result — would the plaintiff’s injuries have occurred but for the defendant’s negligence? In Trainor, the trial judge accepted that factual causation was established for all of Ms. Trainor’s injuries, including her chronic pain, TMD, and additional surgeries. This finding was not disputed on appeal.

Second, the plaintiff must establish legal causation — that the injuries are not too remote from the defendant’s negligence to warrant recovery. The Supreme Court of Canada in Mustapha v. Culligan defined the standard as a “real risk” that would occur to the mind of a reasonable person and would not be brushed aside as far-fetched. This is where the trial judge erred in the Trainor case.

The Objective Standard of Foreseeability

A critical aspect of the legal causation analysis is that foreseeability must be assessed objectively — from the standpoint of a person of “ordinary fortitude.” The court does not ask whether this specific plaintiff’s reaction was predictable. Instead, it asks whether a person of ordinary fortitude could foreseeably suffer the general type of injury that resulted from the accident.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge applied a subjective standard rather than the required objective test. The judge focused on how Ms. Trainor’s individual mental health history contributed to the development of her chronic pain. This approach mirrored the precise error the Supreme Court identified in Mustapha: taking into account the plaintiff’s “previous history” and “particular circumstances” rather than asking what a person of ordinary fortitude would have experienced.

As the Court of Appeal emphasized, the foreseeability analysis should have ended once the judge acknowledged that localized pain was a foreseeable consequence of the accident. Chronic pain, jaw disorders, and leg injuries flowing from a motor vehicle collision are not unusual or far-fetched — they are precisely the types of injuries typically seen in accident cases.

The Importance of How the Thin Skull Doctrine Was Applied

The distinction between a “thin skull” and a “crumbling skull” plaintiff was central to this appeal. Under the thin skull doctrine, as established by the Supreme Court in Athey v. Leonati, the tortfeasor must take the victim as they find them and is liable for the full extent of the injuries — even if those injuries are more severe than what an average person would have experienced.

The crumbling skull doctrine, by contrast, applies when a plaintiff has a pre-existing condition that was actively deteriorating. In those cases, the court may reduce the award to reflect the risk that the condition would have caused harm regardless of the accident. Critically, as the New Brunswick Court of Appeal confirmed in Wallace v. Thibodeau, courts must not dismiss otherwise meritorious claims in crumbling skull cases. They must instead reduce the award to reflect the measured risk.

The trial judge’s reasons contained an internal contradiction on this point. At paragraphs 297 and 298 of her decision, the judge concluded both that Ms. Trainor’s pre-existing conditions were the “cause” of her chronic pain, and also that those conditions were “well managed” but placed her at greater risk of pain progressing. The Court of Appeal held that the second characterization — well-managed conditions that placed the plaintiff at greater risk — reflected the characteristics of a thin skull plaintiff, not a crumbling skull.

This finding meant that Ms. Trainor was entitled to damages based on the trial judge’s own provisional assessments, without any reduction for pre-existing vulnerabilities.

The Damages Breakdown: What $2.3 Million Covers

The provisional assessments that became the final award after the appeal covered every major head of personal injury damages recognized in Canadian law.

General damages of $200,000 formed the foundation of this personal injury result, compensating Ms. Trainor for pain, suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life. This represented a $50,000 increase from the original trial award of $150,000, reflecting the full scope of injuries including chronic pain and PTSD.

Past loss of earnings of $183,206 covered the period from the accident through trial, recognizing that Ms. Trainor could not continue her work as a waitress due to the heel injury and was ultimately unable to sustain any employment due to chronic pain.

Future loss of earnings of $1,289,716.30 was the largest component of the award. The Court of Appeal set aside the trial judge’s 40% discount, which had reduced this figure to $773,829.78. The actuary’s calculations had already incorporated general disablement rates, and the trial judge’s additional 40% reduction amounted to double-counting the risk of disability. The full provisional figure, including management fees of 13%, was restored.

Past loss of housekeeping capacity of $68,737 recognized that from the date of the accident onward, Ms. Trainor required assistance with household tasks she could no longer perform independently.

Future loss of housekeeping capacity of $163,628.82 projected this need forward based on actuarial evidence incorporating present-value multipliers, tax gross-up, and a 17% management fee.

Future care costs were assessed in three categories. Projected modalities totalled $2,590.75 for vocational and ergonomic assessments. Aids and services totalled $260,686.16, covering household assistance, mobility supports, sleep equipment, and assistive devices. Medications totalled $139,985 for prescriptions related to treating PTSD and other accident-related conditions. The combined future care costs included a 22% management fee.

The court also awarded costs of $5,000 plus applicable disbursements to be paid by the defendant.

This personal injury result demonstrates the full scope of compensation available under Canadian law.

Why the 40% Discount Was Overturned

One of the most significant aspects of this personal injury result was the Court of Appeal’s decision to set aside the trial judge’s 40% discount on future loss of earnings. This discount had reduced Ms. Trainor’s future income loss from $1,289,716.30 to $773,829.78 — a reduction of over $500,000.

The trial judge applied this discount to account for Ms. Trainor’s “pre-existing psychiatric vulnerabilities.” However, the Court of Appeal identified two problems with this approach that directly affected the personal injury result. First, the actuary, Jessie Gmeiner, had already incorporated general disablement rates from the most recent Canada Pension Plan valuation into her multipliers. The judge’s 40% discount was applied on top of rates that already accounted for the general risk of disability in the population.

Second, the actuary testified that any adjustment beyond the general disablement rates would have required specific expert evidence from a psychiatrist or psychologist indicating the degree to which Ms. Trainor’s condition would have interfered with her future ability to work. No such evidence was provided to support a 40% reduction. The actuary explained that if it were determined Ms. Trainor was, for example, twice as likely to become disabled as the general population, the appropriate adjustment would have been an additional 3.4% deduction — not 40%.

The Court of Appeal concluded that the 40% discount was based on a misapprehension of the actuarial evidence and was inconsistent with the trial judge’s own findings about Ms. Trainor’s likely career trajectory.

What This Case Means for Injury Victims

The Trainor decision established several important principles for anyone pursuing a personal injury result through the courts.

Chronic pain is a foreseeable consequence of car accidents, even when it develops months or years after the initial injury. Pre-existing mental health conditions do not bar recovery when those conditions were stable before the accident, and should not reduce a personal injury result award. The crumbling skull doctrine cannot be used to deny claims — only to reduce awards based on evidence. And trial-level errors can be corrected on appeal, with a personal injury result measured in millions of dollars.

For a detailed discussion of how chronic pain claims work and what this personal injury result means for injured people, read: Chronic Pain After a Car Accident: What You Need to Know.

This case was handled by Michael B. Murphy, KC — former Attorney General and Minister of Justice of New Brunswick, with over 40 years of litigation experience and more than 100 reported decisions — and Shane M. Scott. This personal injury result is one of the largest ever recorded in Atlantic Canada. The Mike Murphy Law Group handles personal injury result cases, criminal defence cases, from offices in Moncton (head office), Halifax, Charlottetown, St. John’s, and Saint John.

Frequently Asked Questions

How much was the personal injury result in Trainor v. DeArcos?

The New Brunswick Court of Appeal ordered this personal injury result of approximately $2.3 million in damages, including general damages, past and future loss of earnings, housekeeping capacity, and future care costs. The trial court had originally awarded approximately $325,000 before the appeal corrected multiple legal errors.

What is the thin skull doctrine in Canadian personal injury law?

The thin skull doctrine means the at-fault party must take the victim as they find them. If a plaintiff had a pre-existing condition that was latent and stable — such as managed depression or anxiety — the defendant pays full damages even if the injuries are more severe than an average person would have suffered. The Trainor decision reaffirmed this principle in the context of chronic pain following a car accident. This principle was critical to securing the personal injury result in the Trainor case.

Can chronic pain be compensated after a car accident?

Yes. The Court of Appeal confirmed that chronic pain is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of a motor vehicle accident under Canadian law. Even when chronic pain develops gradually over months or years, it remains compensable if the accident factually caused or contributed to the condition. Pursuing a personal injury result in these cases requires experienced legal representation.

Does the Mike Murphy Law Group handle personal injury cases on contingency?

Yes. The Mike Murphy Law Group takes personal injury cases on a contingency fee basis across New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador. There are no legal fees unless the case is won. This makes pursuing a personal injury result accessible to everyone regardless of financial circumstances.

How do I know if my personal injury case is being undervalued?

The Trainor case is a clear example: a personal injury result of this magnitude shows clearly: the same evidence supported $325,000 at trial and $2.3 million on appeal. If you have chronic pain, PTSD, or other ongoing conditions after an accident and the insurance company’s offer seems low, it is worth having an experienced personal injury lawyer review your claim. Contact the Mike Murphy Law Group over the phone or through the secure online intake form.

The Trainor personal injury result demonstrates what experienced advocacy can achieve. If you or someone you care about has been seriously injured in a car accident and wants to pursue a personal injury result, contact us.