Supreme Court
Action No. 147 of 1980
26th July, 1984
Rajasingham, J.

Mr. Denys Barrow for the Plaintiff
Mr. Lionel Welch for the Defendant

Damages - Personal injury - Self-defence - Judgment for Plaintiff - Costs

J U D G M E N T

The Plaintiff's claim is for damages resulting from a stabbing injury caused to him by the Defendant. The Defendant, while admitting that he stabbed the Plaintiff, states that he did so in self-defence and that he used no more force than was necessary.

The Plaintiff gave evidence of the incident and his version suggests strongly that he was either too drunk to know what was happening or was hallucinating. Fortunately for him his witness Dennis Gladden appears to be more reliable. Dennis Gladden so contradicts the Plaintiff as to make the Plaintiff's evidence, at least in relation to the events of that night, totally unreliable. According to the Plaintiff, all he did was shout advice to two men and a girl in an alley and he was set upon by both those men with knives. According to Gladden, and here he is partially corroborated by the Defendant, the Plaintiff and Defendant had an argument and thereafter the Plaintiff followed the Defendant down George Street and continued to argue with the Defendant. He says the Plaintiff was "staggering" drunk. This too is in keeping with the other evidence. Gladden says that he stopped on his verandah and watched what was going on. He denied that he expected trouble but I do not believe him. I am convinced he stopped to watch the trouble that was brewing. It is then he saw the Defendant apparently struggling to get loose from his companions, the other male person and the female. The Defendant got loose and came at the Plaintiff who was, in my opinion, not averse to a confrontation. According to Gladden, the Plaintiff was taken by surprise and received the stab before he could defend himself. The Defendant, however, denies he was the aggressor. He says he did not argue with the Plaintiff but merely asked him to go to bed and then went his way. He says he was then attacked from behind by the Plaintiff and received a blow across his head, and that he then stepped two pace forward and drew a knife he had in his socks and turned to meet his aggressor. He says that the Plaintiff was swinging his arm back with an object as long as a machete and that he, the Defendant, bent under the expected blow and stepped forward with a jabbing motion of his knife arm. He says the Plaintiff impaled himself on the knife as he did so.

Gladden says, and he is corroborated partially by the Defendant, that the Plaintiff grabbed the Defendant as the knife struck him and they both fell. The Defendant also says this but they disagree on where it happened. Gladden says it happened on the street and the Defendant says it happened on the alley side of the drain. They both fell and the Plaintiff hit his head on the drain as they fell.

This is briefly the essence of the evidence. I find the Defendant's version as unlikely as that of the Plaintiff. I have concluded that what happened was that the Plaintiff having consumed a large quantity of liquor was drunkenly aggressive in his language and that the Defendant, perhaps also under the influence of liquor, reacted violently to the Plaintiff's verbal assault. I believe that, while he sought to assist the Plaintiff by not so subtle nuances, Gladden was in fact giving a reasonably accurate version of the sequence of events.

The Plaintiff suffered a stab wound in the lower chest and that cut two ribs and passed through the anterior and posterior wall of the stomach and into the pancreas. It divided one of the main blood vessels of the stomach, the left gastric artery. He also suffered lacerations to the eyebrows. He was very fortunate in having a good surgeon available. The stab wound was closed, the bleeding vessel was sutured and the broken ribs wired together. The eyebrow lacerations were also sutured. The closure of the cutting wound in the chest involved leaving a draining sinus for quite some time. The records show that the Plaintiff was initially in hospital from 11th June to 15th July, 1977. He was re-admitted with a fever on 2nd August, 1977 and discharged on 12th August, 1977. He still had a draining sinus at this time. He was readmitted on 15th October, 1977, and discharged on 18th October, 1977. There is no mention of the sinus in the record, but this may prove nothing because the record is very scanty. Mr. Waight, the surgeon who examined the Plaintiff on 11th May, 1984, says a sinus could persist for several months or even a year. It is important to try to ascertain when the sinus healed, because Mr. Waight has stated categorically that the Plaintiff could have resumed his occupation of diving for conch a month after the sinus healed. The Plaintiff in his evidence said the sinus had healed when he attended the Supreme Court case against the Defendant. The Court records show that, that case ended on the 8th February, 1978. Thus the period of total loss of earnings is fixed as being from 11th June, 1977, to February 1978 - eight months. If Mr. Waight is correct, the Plaintiff could then have returned to diving for conch.

Mr. Waight said the abdominal hernias could cause the Plaintiff some discomfort and sometimes even pain. He said the weakness of the stomach wall made him susceptible to further trauma. He said the hernia could become larger and require surgical treatment in the future. He also added that, in view of the contamination of the abdominal cavity noted at the time of the operation, the Plaintiff could develop adhesions which could result in obstruction of the intestines and lead to further surgical treatment in the future. Mr. Waight also noted a four-centimetre scar over the right eye which was of poor cosmetic appearance.

The Plaintiff's evidence of his earnings prior to his injury is contradictory and quite unreliable, like the rest of his evidence. He spoke of figures of $175.00 a week and $300.00 to $400.00 a week as being his earnings from going to sea. In view of his statement that that was his employment for six months prior to his injury, I am accepting his earnings from this occupation as his earnings in arriving at his loss. He said he would work for three months and stop for a month when the season was closed. Since he gave no specific dates for the closed season, I am calculating his losses on the basis of three weeks of earnings to one idle week. On this basis and accepting his loss at his lowest figure stated in evidence, his losses over the eight months would be losses for 25 weeks at $175.00. However, the Plaintiff admitted that they could not go out if the weather was rough. This period covers the rainy season in Belize. I do not think it unreasonable to say that they may not have been able to go out for a fifty of this period owing to inclement weather. Hence he has lost $3,500.00 by way of earnings.

The Plaintiff undoubtedly suffered much pain and discomfort from the injury and the surgery and during the time the sinus continued to drain. There is continuing discomfort and occasional pain according to the doctor. He is also disfigured by the stab wound and the lacerated eyebrow. There is also likelihood of future surgical treatment being required either for trauma from the weakened wall of the abdomen, or the adhesions that may occur in the stomach or both. Taking all these matters into consideration I think a sum of $4,000.00 to be reasonable as general damages.

I give judgment for the Plaintiff in a sum of $7,500.00 being a sum of $3,500.00 as loss of earnings and a sum of $4,000.00 as general damages. The Plaintiff led no evidence of the medical expenses incurred by him. I therefore disallow his claim for medical expenses. The Plaintiff is entitled to the costs of this section. I award costs in a sum of $600.00. The Plaintiff will, therefore be entitled to receive a sum of $8,100.00 in all.

----------OO----------