In Harder v. Poettcker, the Plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident in a parking lot, and consequently sued for damages. Liability was not admitted by ICBC’S lawyer. The trial proceeded by judge and jury, with the jury awarding $5,100.00 in total damages, but this only constituted “special damages” (out of pocket expenses), which included loss of housekeeping capacity. No provision was made for “non-pecuniary damages” (the injury component of an ICBC claim).
After the jury finding the Plaintiff to be 85% at fault for the accident, the resulting award was under $1,000.00.
After delivery of the verdict, ICBC’S lawyer applied for judgment in accordance with the verdict, however counsel for the Plaintiff, citing the Court of Appeal decision in Balla, and relying on Rule 12-6(7) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules opposed the application on the basis that answers given to questions posed to the jury were conflicting, and that, as a result, the action must be retried.
The trial judge ordered a new trial, ruling that it was inconsistent to award money for out of pocket expenses, yet not award any money for non-pecuniary damages for the Plaintiff’s injuries, which made the incurring of the out of pocket expenses necessary. The trial judge ordered that the new trial be before himself, with no jury, as he was already familiar with all the evidence, and it would be more expeditious than to wait a lengthy amount of time for a new trial by judge and jury.
 Notwithstanding the importance of attempting to enforce a jury’s verdict and the fact that even apart from the 85% contributory negligence award against the plaintiff, the award was at best either very modest or nil, I am driven to conclude that to award nothing for non-pecuniary damages but award $1,200 for special damages is an inconsistent verdict.
 Although a possible rationalization of the award is that the jury intended to award the plaintiff say $400 for non-pecuniary damages but rounded it down in accordance with my instructions to zero, I reject that. I find the jury intended to award nothing for non-pecuniary damages. Even if the jury intended to award only a nominal amount for non-pecuniary damages, I think that would still create an inconsistent verdict: see Le v. Luz, 2003 BCCA 640.
 I also reject the submission that the jury verdict could properly be interpreted to mean that they intended to award something for non-pecuniary damages under a pecuniary heading.
 Although the defendant argues forcefully that there was coherence and consistency in the jury verdict, I respectfully disagree. I find that the jury award, although small from the plaintiff’s perspective, is inconsistent and judgment cannot be entered on the defendant’s motion.