Buttrose J (with whom Rose CJ and Wee Chong Jin JJ agreed):

In this case the plaintiff a girl of nine years old suffered a severe brain injury as the result of being struck down by a lorry at a pedestrian crossing. At the trial the defendant admitted liability and the special damages were agreed at $764.80. The sole issue was as to the amount of general damages to which the plaintiff was entitled. The learned trial Judge in his very thorough judgment after carefully reviewing the evidence, assessed the general damages at $40,000.

From that decision the plaintiff now appeals. The material portion of the learned trial Judge's findings may be summarised briefly as follows:-

Before the accident the plaintiff was a perfectly ordinary normal child and full of life. After the accident she was a completely different person. She is now a difficult girl to get on with and is moody, irritable and subject to fits of temper. If she is compelled to do something that she does not like, she goes outside and beats the dogs. She requires constant supervision. She has made no progress at a school to which she was sent after the accident and was always at the bottom of the class and had to be withdrawn. She is now mentally retarded and is a spastic. It is considered that her condition is unlikely to improve.

The learned trial Judge also stated that her future employment when she is older will be very limited but there was no reason why she could not work as a domestic servant. Her chances of marriage he thought would be affected.

It was argued on behalf of the plaintiff that there was evidence to show that the girl could never earn a living and her chances of marriage were now nonexistent and that the learned trial Judge failed to take these factors into account.

The evidence of Professor Ransome, who was called on behalf of the plaintiff, was, inter alia, that she could not be an amah and could never work alone and that she was quite irresponsible.

The learned trial Judge apparently based his award on the English case of Millikin v. Smith [1951] WN 422; Kemp & Kemp vol. 1, 2nd Edn. p. 224 which is, in many respects, not dissimilar to the present. In that case, the plaintiff was a little boy just over four years. He sustained two fractures of the skull, causing a permanent brain injury. As the result the boy's personality changed; he became irritable, excitable, unreliable. He would suddenly lose control and attack people for no reason. There was no real ground for supposing that his condition would improve. He would have great difficulty, when grown up in holding down any job, even one of an unskilled nature. The defendant did not enter an appearance and judgment was signed in default of appearance. A master assessed the plaintiff's general damages at STG5,000 (the equivalent of slightly more than $40.000). The Divisional Court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal against this award. The Court of Appeal dismissed the plaintiff's appeal from the Divisional Court indicating that while they considered the award on the low side and would have given more they were not prepared to say that it was so much below the sum they would have awarded that it could be said to be wholly erroneous.

That case must of course, be considered in relation to the English and not the Singapore background with its attendant labour problems and shortage of work. In the United Kingdom there are special institutions and facilities for the aid, assistance and training of cripples both physical and mental which do not exist here. It was argued by Mr. Cashin that the Singapore economy was not sufficiently diversified for a cripple to find employment. In considering these matters it is necessary, in my view, to exercise caution before following too closely the English decisions.

The learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that there was no reason why the girl could not work as a domestic servant, but that seems to me to be flying in the face of Professor Ransome'