In March 2026, the Mike Murphy Law Group secured a car accident injury claim decision totalling $3.3 million in assessed damages for an 18-year-old woman who suffered spinal fractures, a brain injury, and severe psychological trauma after being ejected from a vehicle in a high-speed collision. The decision in Allen v. Doiron, 2026 NBKB 049, represents the largest personal injury trial decision in the region’s history.
Aodhan P. Murphy and Michael B. Murphy, KC of the Mike Murphy Law Group represented the plaintiff, Kelsey Allen, through a ten-day trial before the Court of King’s Bench in Moncton.
Table of Contents
The Accident: A Catastrophic High-Speed Collision
On October 10, 2015, the Plaintiff was an 18-year-old passenger in a vehicle travelling at highway speed between Moncton and Sackville, New Brunswick. The vehicle lost control, rolled seven and a half times across the highway, and came to rest in the opposing lane. The Plaintiff was ejected from the vehicle. Another passenger was killed.
The mechanism of injury was described by the plaintiff’s orthopedic surgeon as extremely severe — estimating the force at approximately 25,000 foot-pounds of energy, far exceeding anything seen in minor collisions. The Plaintiff was found unconscious in the highway median. Her father arrived at the scene before paramedics.
The Injuries: Spinal Fractures, Brain Injury, and Lasting Impairment
The Plaintiff sustained fractures to her cervical spine at C6 and C7, her thoracic spine at T1 and T5, and her pelvis. The cervical fracture was unstable and required surgical fusion to prevent further neurological injury or death. She also suffered a concussion consistent with mild traumatic brain injury from the ejection and impact.
In the months and years following the accident, she developed chronic daily pain throughout her neck, back, shoulders, and pelvis. She was diagnosed with PTSD, major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, panic attacks, and mild neurocognitive disorder. Neuropsychological testing revealed severe deficits in verbal learning and immediate memory, with scores in the second percentile for learning new information from a single exposure. The severity of these injuries formed the foundation of this car accident injury claim.
Before the accident, the Plaintiff was a competitive athlete who captained her high school soccer team, represented her province at national competitions, received three athletic scholarships, and was actively applying to university with the goal of becoming a teacher. After the accident, she was unable to sustain employment, could not complete a college program, and remained dependent on her mother for housing and financial support nearly a decade later.
What the Defence Argued — and Why the Court Rejected It
The defendant admitted liability for the accident but contested causation and damages. The defence retained a psychiatrist and a physiatrist who each conducted a single assessment years after the collision. Their position was that the Plaintiff’s current difficulties were largely unrelated to the accident and instead attributable to pre-existing depression, lifestyle factors, deconditioning, and the stress of litigation. Insurance companies routinely deploy these strategies in a car accident injury claim of this magnitude.
The Court’s Response to the Defence Assessments
The trial judge, Justice Christa Bourque, gave limited weight to both defence assessments. The psychiatrist’s assessment lasted approximately 65 minutes, with 40 minutes conducted by telephone after technical difficulties. He did not administer standardized diagnostic tests, did not retain his working notes, and could not produce his draft report. He concluded that the Plaintiff’s PTSD was in remission — a finding that contradicted the consistent diagnoses of every treating professional over nearly ten years.
The physiatrist acknowledged that the Plaintiff’s fractures had healed but could not explain her ongoing pain, ultimately attributing it to myofascial issues and deconditioning rather than the high-energy trauma of being ejected from a vehicle at highway speed.
The court preferred the evidence of the treating family physician, the treating psychologist, the neuropsychologist, the orthopedic surgeon, and the functional capacity evaluator — all of whom documented ongoing severe impairment through standardized testing, repeated clinical observation, and years of treatment.
The Causation Ruling
The court applied the framework recently confirmed by the New Brunswick Court of Appeal in Trainor v. DeArcos, 2025 NBCA 131 — another record-setting decision by the Mike Murphy Law Group. The court found that chronic pain, psychological injury, and cognitive impairment are foreseeable consequences of serious motor vehicle accidents. the Plaintiff’s pre-existing situational depression — described by her own physician as mild, improving, and common among teenagers — did not break the causal chain. This was a thin skull case: the defendant was required to take the Plaintiff as he found her.
The Damages: $3.3 Million Assessed by the Court
The court assessed total damages of $3,335,800, broken down across the following categories. Each category of damages in this car accident injury claim was supported by detailed evidence.
- General damages (pain and suffering): $200,000 — reflecting the severity and permanence of the Plaintiff’s physical pain, psychological injuries, loss of independence, and the destruction of her planned career as a teacher.
- Past loss of income: $72,262 — calculated from the date the Plaintiff would have entered the teaching workforce through to trial, based on forensic accounting evidence.
- Future loss of income: $2,139,210 — representing the full loss of her teaching career earnings to age 60, with no residual earning capacity. The court found that the Plaintiff cannot sustain even part-time sedentary employment.
- Loss of pension: $385,457 — the net value of the New Brunswick Teachers’ Pension Plan benefits she will never receive, including the bridge benefit from age 60 to 65.
- Future cost of care: $492,895 — covering pain management, psychological therapy, medication, exercise supervision, sleep equipment, and assistive devices for the remainder of her life.
- Past and future loss of valuable services: $45,976 — household assistance required since the accident and projected into the future.
The assessed total of $3,335,800 was subject to a mandatory 25% statutory reduction under the New Brunswick Insurance Act because the Plaintiff was not wearing a seatbelt at the time of the collision. After this reduction and the addition of court costs, the final award was $2,593,195. The court found that the Plaintiff’s injuries — including spinal fractures and ejection from the vehicle — would likely have been far less severe had she been restrained.
How the Court Evaluated the Medical Evidence in This Car Accident Injury Claim
One of the most significant aspects of this car accident injury claim was the court’s thorough evaluation of competing medical evidence. The plaintiff presented testimony from seven medical and professional witnesses who had treated or assessed the Plaintiff over a period of nearly ten years. The defence relied on two independent assessments conducted years after the accident.
The court’s preference for treating professionals over single-session defence assessments will be helpful in Canadian personal injury law. Courts should recognize that a treating physician or psychologist who has observed a patient over years of clinical engagement provides more reliable evidence than an assessor who spent a single session with the plaintiff.
The Neuropsychological Evidence
The neuropsychological assessment was particularly important in this car accident injury claim. Standardized testing revealed that the Plaintiff scored in the second percentile for verbal learning — meaning she could learn new information from a single exposure less effectively than 98% of the population. She also demonstrated severe deficits in immediate memory.
These cognitive impairments, combined with her chronic pain and psychological conditions, formed the basis of the court’s finding that the Plaintiff has no meaningful residual earning capacity. The functional capacity evaluation confirmed that she could not sustain even a seated position for the duration of a workday.
Why the Defence Psychiatric Assessment Failed
The defence psychiatrist’s assessment was given limited weight for several reasons documented in the decision. The assessment lasted only 65 minutes, with 40 minutes conducted by telephone due to technical difficulties. The psychiatrist did not administer any standardized diagnostic tests. He did not retain his working notes and could not produce his draft report when requested. Most critically, his conclusion that the Plaintiff’s PTSD was “in remission” contradicted the consistent diagnoses of every treating professional who had assessed her over the preceding decade. The Court found that he was evasive during cross-examination.
The court’s treatment of this evidence reinforces the importance of thorough, well-documented medical assessments in car accident injury claims. Single-session evaluations that contradict years of clinical observation carry significantly less weight.
Key Findings in This Car Accident Injury Claim
Several of the court’s findings in this car accident injury claim carry significance for future cases.
No residual earning capacity. The court rejected the defence argument that the Plaintiff could perform sedentary or accommodated work. The functional capacity evaluation demonstrated that she could not sustain even a seated position for the duration of a workday. The court found that attempts to work in the service industry reflected motivation and resilience, not proof of capacity.
Teaching career lost. The court accepted that the Plaintiff’s plan to become a teacher was reasonable, well-documented, and likely to have been realized. Her co-op experience, scholarship offers, and university applications all supported this finding. The loss of that career — not just generic employment — formed the basis of the income and pension calculations.
Defence assessment limitations. The court gave limited weight to single-session independent assessments conducted years after the accident, particularly when those assessments lacked standardized testing and conflicted with the consistent findings of treating professionals over nearly a decade.
Mitigation rejected. The court found that the Plaintiff did not fail to mitigate her losses. Her intermittent employment, college attendance, and physical exercise demonstrated reasonable efforts, not a failure to try harder. The court emphasized that the standard for mitigation is reasonableness, not perfection.
The Seatbelt Reduction: How the Insurance Act Affected the Final Award
The final award in this car accident injury claim was significantly affected by a mandatory statutory provision under the New Brunswick Insurance Act. Section 265.2(1) requires a 25% reduction in damages when a plaintiff was not wearing a seatbelt at the time of the collision and the failure to wear a seatbelt contributed to the severity of the injuries.
The court found that the Plaintiff was not wearing a seatbelt when the vehicle rolled and she was ejected. The orthopedic surgeon testified that had she been restrained, the spinal fractures and pelvic fracture would likely have been less severe, and the ejection — which caused the mild traumatic brain injury — would not have occurred.
The 25% reduction applied to the assessed total of $3,335,800, reducing the damages by approximately $742,000. After the reduction and the addition of court costs, the final award was $2,593,195. Despite this substantial reduction, the result remains the largest personal injury trial decision in the region’s history. Despite this reduction, the car accident injury claim resulted in a final award exceeding $2.5 million.
The seatbelt reduction is automatic under New Brunswick law and does not affect the finding of liability against the at-fault driver. It is a separate statutory calculation that applies regardless of the merits of the underlying claim.
Two Record-Setting Results in Consecutive Months
The Allen decision in March 2026 came just three months after the Trainor v. DeArcos decision in December 2025, where the Mike Murphy Law Group secured approximately $2.3 million on appeal. Together, these are the two largest personal injury decisions in the region’s history — both won by the same firm.
The two cases share common legal themes. Both involved young plaintiffs with pre-existing vulnerabilities. Both required the court to apply the thin skull doctrine. Both rejected defence attempts to minimize chronic pain and psychological injury. And in Allen, the trial judge expressly relied on the Trainor appeal decision in her causation analysis — citing it as controlling authority on foreseeability and the thin skull principle.
About the Legal Team
This car accident injury claim was handled by Aodhan P. Murphy and 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. The Mike Murphy Law Group handles personal injury and criminal defence cases from offices in Moncton, Halifax, Charlottetown, St. John’s, and Saint John. This car accident injury claim was one of the largest in the region’s history.
The Mike Murphy Law Group takes car accident injury claims on a contingency fee basis — there are no legal fees unless the case is won. The firm has offices in Moncton (head office), Halifax, Charlottetown, St. John’s, and Saint John. If you or a family member has been injured in a car accident, contact the firm at 506-854-5157 or through the secure online intake form.
Frequently Asked Questions
How much was the car accident injury claim in Allen v. Doiron worth?
The court assessed total damages of $3,335,800 across all heads of damage, including general damages, past and future loss of income, pension loss, future care costs, and loss of valuable services. A mandatory 25% statutory reduction was applied because the plaintiff was not wearing a seatbelt. The final award including costs was $2,593,195. This car accident injury claim remains the largest personal injury trial decision in the region.
What injuries can a car accident injury claim cover?
Catastrophic injuries are those that cause permanent, life-altering impairment. In the Allen case, these included cervical and thoracic spinal fractures requiring surgical fusion, a pelvic fracture, mild traumatic brain injury, chronic pain, PTSD, and cognitive impairment. The combined effect eliminated the Plaintiff’s ability to work or live independently. A car accident injury claim can address any combination of these injuries.
Can I recover damages for a lost career after a car accident?
Yes. If the evidence supports that you were on a reasonable path toward a specific career before the accident, courts can award damages based on the income and pension benefits you would have earned in that career. In the Allen case, the court accepted teaching as the Plaintiff’s likely career based on her co-op experience, scholarship offers, and university applications, and awarded over $2.1 million in future lost income plus $385,000 in pension loss. Documenting this evidence early is critical to the success of any car accident injury claim.
What happens if I was not wearing a seatbelt during the accident?
In New Brunswick, a mandatory 25% reduction in damages applies under the Insurance Act if the plaintiff was not wearing a seatbelt and the failure to do so contributed to the injuries. This reduction is automatic and does not affect the finding of liability against the at-fault driver. Even with this reduction, the Allen car accident injury claim resulted in a final award exceeding $2.5 million.
Does the Mike Murphy Law Group handle car accident injury claims on contingency?
Yes. The Mike Murphy Law Group takes personal injury cases — including car accident injury claims involving spinal fractures, brain injuries, and permanent disability — on a contingency fee basis. There are no legal fees unless the case is won. Contact the team over the phone or through the secure online intake form.
If you or a loved one has been injured in a car accident, contact the Mike Murphy Law Group today over the phone or through the secure online intake form.