Supreme Court
Action No. 285 of 1979
7th March, 1984
Rajasingham, J., Q.C.

Mr. D. Courtenay for the Plaintiff.
No appearance for the Defendant.

Tort - Assessment of damages for personal injuries - Cut wound to forehead, back, thigh, wrist and hand - Loss of finger - 50% permanent disability of use of hand - Pain and suffering - Loss of earnings.

J U D G M E N T

The Plaintiff's Action is for damages suffered by reason of an attack upon her with a machete. The Defendant has not appeared or defended the action.

The Plaintiff's case came up before me for assessment of damages following a judgment entered for default.

The Plaintiff's evidence was that prior to these injuries she lived with her husband and children and took in laundry as a means of earning an income. She said she made an average of $40.00 a week from doing laundry and that she spent this on food for the family.

By reason of the machete attack on her she suffered the following injuries:-

(1)	a cut on her forehead at the hairline
(2)	a cut across her back just below the neck
(3)	a cut on her right thigh
(4)	a cut across the underside of her left wrist
(5)	a cut across the back of her left hand which left three fingers hanging with the bone severed and a fourth also cut but not that deeply
(6)	a cut which severed flesh from the tips of two fingers of the right hand.

She was fortunate in that her injuries were attended to by a good surgeon, Dr. Solanski; because he was able to save two of the three fingers that were left hanging and the hand, while deformed and of little use, is not as cosmetically ugly as it might have been. The Plaintiff was also fortunate in that the cut across the wrist did not do more permanent damage as it might well have done.

Be that as it may, the Plaintiff has lost the ability to close her left hand or grip anything and is unable to use it to follow her former occupation of laundress. Unfortunately the doctor who performed the surgery is not available to give evidence, but the Plaintiff has submitted his report marked "E.W. 2".

This report supports her evidence that that bones of the palm and fingers of the left hand were severed. His report states that the wrist too was practically severed and he considers her "lucky" in that she did not lose her hand altogether. He estimates the permanent disability in that hand at about 50%. He verifies her statement that she still continues to feel pain in the wrist and says this could be explained by damage to sensory nerves of the hand.

My findings are as follows:

(a)	the injuries were cut wounds to the forehead and shoulder which left scars, cut wound to the thigh which left no scar, cut wound to the right hand which caused slight deformation but no permanent disability, and severe cut wounds to the wrist, palm and fingers of the left hand.
(b)	the permanent physical disability was to the left wrist and hand in that she lost one finger and cannot make a fist of her hand or carry anything or continue her former occupation of laundress.
(c)	the Plaintiff was hospitalized for one month and three days and suffered pain only after her release as she had been kept sedated after the numbness wore off. She still suffers pain in her wrist from time to time which the doctor says is caused by nerve damage.
(d)	she has suffered at least 50% permanent disability in the use of her left hand and wrist. She also has a scar on her forehead at the hairline.

I have found from a reading of the decided cases such as Hemsworth v. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd. (1971), Rowlands v. Central Electricity Generating Board (1973), Braman v. H.C. Jones Ltd. (1973) and Mortimer v. Cotton & Co. (1980) that damages awarded for injury to several fingers with the loss of one or more appear to vary between £3,000.00 and £5,000.00 depending on the severity of the disability.

Bearing in mind the injury to the wrist and the facial scar and injury to the tips of the fingers of the right hand and the estimated 50% disability in the use of the left hand, I do not think a sum of $7,000.00 excessive as general damages.

The Plaintiff also proved that she had incurred a sum of $236.50 as medical expenses.

It remains for me to assess her loss of earnings. She lost earnings for five weeks while she was in hospital, which at the proven rate would be $200.00. She has since been unable to continue her occupation. She is 46 years old and was 41 at the date of the injury. She is now living with and being supported by a "common law" husband and does not, as she had to do when she was living with her husband in 1979, have to subscribe for food for herself and her children. I would therefore consider it just to order a sum, as loss of earning, which if invested would give her an income that would place her in as advantageous a position as that which she had. In doing this I take into consideration that she does not in fact have to perform the labour required to earn the income. I therefore award her a sum of $5,000.00 as loss of earnings.

I, therefore, give judgment for the Plaintiff in a sum of $12,236.50 and costs.

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