Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest:

The sole question which is raised in this appeal is whether the damages which were awarded to the appellant ought to be increased. The appellant who is an infant brought an action, suing by his father and next friend, in which he claimed damages for personal injuries from the respondents. On 13 November 1959 he was knocked down and injured in Kuala Lumpur by a motor-bus driven by a servant or agent of the respondents. He alleged that the accident was solely caused by the negligence of the driver of the bus. The respondents denied all allegations of negligence and contended that the accident was caused by or alternatively was substantially contributed to by negligence on the part of the appellant. The action was tried in the High Court at Kuala Lumpur by Suffian J, who, on 6 December 1961, held that there had been negligence on the part of the driver but that the appellant had been guilty of contributory negligence to the extent that the damages to which he would otherwise have been entitled should be halved. He awarded the sum of $390 as special damages (being half of the amount claimed) and the sum of $7,500 as general damages (being half of the amount that he would have awarded had there been total liability). He made an order that the appellant should receive half his taxed costs. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court of the Federation of Malaya and contended that the award of damages was so inordinately low as to call for increase. By leave of Suffian J he also appealed against the order that had been made in regard to costs. The appeal was heard on 11 and 12 April 1962 and was dismissed with costs save and except to the extent of varying the order of Suffian J regarding costs so as to give the appellant his full taxed costs of the action. On 15 October 1962 the Supreme Court ordered that final leave be granted to the appellant to appeal (against that part of the judgment of the Court of Appeal which related to damages) to His Majesty the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.

The appellant at the date of the accident was a schoolboy aged seven. The motor bus which knocked him down ran over his right leg causing such severe crushing injuries as to necessitate the amputation of the leg. He was taken to hospital after the accident and was not unconscious at the time of his admission. The amputation was of the entire leg at a point just below the hip joint. At the time of the trial the appellant (then a schoolboy aged nine) was able to walk with an artificial leg which he had some time before. In his judgment the learned Judge said:

In attempting to place the plaintiff in so far as can be done by money in the same position as he would have been in but for the negligence of the defendant's driver, I am seriously handicapped by the fact that at the time of the accident the plaintiff was only seven years of age and was not a working man earning money. His injuries were serious, his pain and suffering excruciating. Because of the amputation his mobility has been seriously affected, but not his mental capacity and if he does well at school there is nothing to stop him from earning a living in a sedentary occupation or even from achieving eminence in the professions or politics. Nevertheless I take into account the probability that he might not have the mental equipment necessary for these positions, in which event his lack of mobility would be a serious handicap to his future livelihood. Considering all these factors and considering the social class to which the plaintiff belongs (his father is a watchman who sends two of his sons to an English school) and giving this matter the best consideration I can in the circumstances, I award $7,500 general damages, that is, half the damages I would have awarded for 100 0ability."

In appeals comparable in nature to the present one it must be recognised, as was said by Lord Somervell in Lim Joo Chiang V. Lim Siew Choo & Anor. that the burden on an appellant who