How have courts considered loss of earnings and cost of future care in a motor vehicle accident case?

Moreover, in Lindal v. Lindal, supra, at p. 635, Dickson J., per curiam, considered together two of the heads of general damages — loss of earnings and cost of future care — in a conceptual manner when he stated: A number of secondary principles flow from the basic precept of compensation. The first is that anything having a money value which the plaintiff has lost should be made good by the defendant. If the plaintiff is unable to work, then the defendant should compensate him for his lost earnings. If the plaintiff has to pay for expensive medical or nursing attention, then this cost should be borne by the defendant. These costs are “losses” to the plaintiff, in the sense that they are expenses which he would not have had to incur but for the accident. The amount of the award under these heads of damages should not be influenced by the depth of the defendant's pocket or by sympathy for the position of either party. Nor should arguments over the social costs of the award be controlling at this point. The first and controlling principle is that the victim must be compensated for his loss. (The italics are Hinds J.'s.)