JUDGMENTBY: THOMSON CJ, BARAKBAH JA AND NEAL J

THOMSON CJ (delivering oral judgment): The appellant in this case suffered personal injuries in consequence of a motor vehicle accident in which he was involved. He sued the owner and the driver of the vehicle in negligence. Liability was admitted and in consequence the only issue at the trial was the quantum of damages. In the event he was awarded special damages amounting to $ 1,870 and$ 10,000 general damages.

With regard to the special damages there is no complaint. He has, however, appealed against the amount of the general damages on the ground that these are inadequate.

Before proceeding further I would remind myself of the following observations by Morris L.J. in the case of Scott v Musial [1959] 2 QB 429, 437:--

"it is recognised that the fixation of damages is so largely a matter

of opinion or of impression that differences of calculation or

assessment are to be expected. There is, to some extent, an exercise of

judicial discretion. It is for this reason that, if three judges of the

Court of Appeal consider that the amount of general damages that they

would have awarded would have been a figure different from that decided

by the trial judge, they will not, for that reason alone, give

preference to their own figure; they will only do so if satisfied that

the judge has acted on a wrong principle of law or has misapprehended

the facts, or has, for those or other reasons, made a wholly erroneous

estimate of the damage suffered:"

My own view is that in this case the amount of damages awarded was inadequate. I think, further, there has been a certain amount of misapprehension of facts on the part of the trial Judge and it would, therefore, be proper for this Court to review the award.

The facts are (and as far as I can ascertain they are indisputed facts) that the appellant suffered very severe injuries and in consequence was in hospital for periods amounting in the whole to over eight months. He had a dislocation of the right hip and a fracture of the acetabulum. There was a fracture of the lower end of the right femur with injury to the right sciatic nerve. These were his injuries as described by a medical witness at the time of the accident, which was in December 1960. His condition in consequence of these injuries at the time of the trial in March 1963 was that:--

"The right leg is markedly weak and 1" shortened. There is a good range

of movement in the right hip but there is pain at extremes of movement.

The right knee is badly disorganised. There is only 40 [degrees] of

flexion instead of 135 -- 140 [degrees] There is about 5 [degrees]

limitation of extension. There is pain on movement. One of the

fractured ends is jutting beneath the skin. There is wasting of the

thigh muscles and loss of sensation of the outer aspect of lower leg.

Partial recovery from the sciatic nerve. The patient was walking with

the aid of a crutch when I saw him. Knee is unstable. He could do

sedentary work by the end of 1961. I think an operation to fuse the

knee is necessary which means to make it completely rigid.

When I first saw him I was not of the opinion that plaintiff could

never be able to walk again. I cannot say that plaintiff is making

steady recovery."

So much for the injuries.

The other relevant facts are that the appellant is a young man, aged 23; that he is married and that prior to the accident he made a living as an itinerant hawker of a drink known as "chendul" which he hawked round mines and schools. On all that, considered by itself, I would say that$ 10,000 is an inadequate amount of compensation and when I turn to the learned Judges grounds of judgment I come to the conclusion that he has paid insufficient, if any, regard to the question of probable loss of earnings.

As I have said, the appellant was an itinerant dri

Click Here to Read the rest of this document