Supreme Court
Action No. 376 of 1981
8th October, 1982.
Knight, Registrar

Mr. M. C. Young for the plaintiff

Damages for personal injury - General and Special damages - How to be assessed.

J U D G M E N T

Judgment in default of appearance was, on the 22nd day of December, 1981, entered in this Action against the first and second Defendants, for damages to be assessed.

The Writ in this Action claimed damages due to the negligent driving of the second-named Defendant and the negligent management of a vehicle by the third-named Defendant, both as employees of the first-named Defendant, on the 8th September, 1981.

The record reveals that service of the Writ was effected on the first and second-named Defendants respectively, on the 11th and 10th December, 1981, and that on the 22nd day of December, 1981 judgment in default of appearance was entered for the Plaintiff to recover against the first and second-named Defendants, damages, to be assessed.

On the 5th day of January, 1982, the Court ordered that damages be assessed by the Registrar. This therefore is an assessment of damages in pursuance of the said order, in respect of personal and other injuries suffered by the Plaintiff.

The evidence before me is that the Plaintiff, who describes himself as a cycling enthusiast, takes regular cycling exercises along the Northern Highway. On the 8th September, 1981 he was on one of such exercises when, riding his bicycle back to Belize City, between miles 7 and 8 he was hit on his left side by a truck and was rendered unconscious. When he regained consciousness he found himself in a pick-up truck (not the truck that hit him) coming towards Belize City. He was taken to the Belize City Hospital.

At the Hospital he was x-rayed and treated for a cut over his left eye and stiffness on his left side. After treatment he insisted on going home, although the Doctor who treated him wanted to have him confined. He went home and took his bed.

On the 14th September, 1981 the Plaintiff went back to the Hospital where he was examined by Doctor Benito Cetina. All this time he was suffering from severe headaches and pain and stiffness in his body.

Doctor Cetina gave evidence to the effect that he examined the Plaintiff on the 14th September, 1981and his observations were that Plaintiff had haemotamia over the left eyebrow and on the left side of the body running from the waist to, and around, the hip area. The Doctor further testified that the haemotamia on Plaintiff's left side was superficial and ran continously from the waist to the hip. The Doctor observed no other injuries. In the Doctor's opinion the injuries he observed were consistent with having received a blow.

The Doctor said there was no permanent damage and that in his opinion the pain suffered by the Plaintiff would have extended for fifteen days, from the time he saw him, then disappear. The Plaintiff's eyesight was normal, and he walked normally.

I now address myself to the question of damages. As is well known the considerations which ought to be borne in mind in assessing general damages are set out by Wooding C.J. in the case of CORNILLIAC v. ST. LOUIS (1965) reported in 7 W.I.R 491 at page 492. These considerations are: (a) the nature and extent of the damages sustained (b) the nature and gravity of the resulting physical disability (c) pain and suffering (d) loss of amenities, and (e) the extent to which pecuniary prospects were affected.

As regards these considerations I find that the question of (1) the nature and gravity of the resulting physical disability (2) the extent to which pecuniary prospects were affected do not arise, since, from the evidence before me, the Plaintiff suffered no resulting physical disability, and consequently, after a brief period, was able to resume his normal business activities.

What remains for consideration therefore are (1) the nature and extent of the injuries sustained (2) the pain and suffering endured and (3) the resulting loss of amenities, and, I must add, the Plaintiff's pecuniary loss during the period of his illness.

As regards the nature and extent of the injuries sustained by the Plaintiff and the pain and suffering he underwent, I sum up the evidence thus: (a) Plaintiff was knocked from his bicycle by a motor vehicle (b) he was rendered unconscious, albeit for a short period (c) he suffered a cut over his left eye (d) he was hit on the left side of his body resulting in haematomia on his left side from the waist to, and around, the hip area, (e) he endured severe headaches, pain and stiffness in his body for at least 21 days.

As regards loss of amenities, this I consider to be for an extremely short time, as there is no suggestion that after the Plaintiff's recovery from his brief illness, he was physically unable to pursue his cycling exercises.

I turn now to the matter of the Plaintiff's pecuniary loss during the period of his illness.

The Plaintiff's evidence on this point is that he is the proprietor of a restaurant which is supervised by his wife and himself. During, and due to, his illness, the restaurant had to be opened about 1 hour to one hour and a half later and closed about half hour to one hour earlier, than usual, resulting in the loss of profit to the extent of $200 per day. The loss was suffered during the period 8th to 14th September, 1981. The Plaintiff's evidence is that he went back to work and thus rejoined his wife in the operation of the restaurant on the 15th September, 1981.

Bearing in mind the principle enunciated by Wooding C.J in the case of AZIZ AHAMAD, LTD. V. RAGHUBAR (Trinidad and Tobago) reported in 12 W.I.R 352, at page 357 that "……………we ought consciously to set about establishing and following trends of our own. But until we do we should pay heed to and take such guidance as we can from awards elsewhere, making such adjustments as may be appropriate having regard to our own prevailing conditions", and not being able to find a comparable local case, I have looked outside our realm to see what, if any, cases there are, within the framework of which, the instant case may be cast.

I have examined a number of English cases as well as numerous West Indian cases but found none which can be considered comparable with the instant case. Nevertheless I have gleaned some valuable guidance from some of them.

I am impressed however with the statement in KEMP & KEMP on the Quantum of Damages (2nd Edition) Volume 1 at page 5, where, discussing the difficulty arising in calculating personal injuries and suffering in monetary terms, it says "Faced with this problem the courts have solved it by saying that the injured man should be given reasonable compensation."

Taking all relevant matters into consideration, therefore, and classifying the injuries that the Plaintiff received as minor, I have arrived at, and consider the sum of, $2,000.00 as reasonable compensation. This amount I award as general damages.

I now address my mind to the matter of special damages. The Plaintiff's evidence is that the bicycle that he was riding at the time of the accident was an English Raleigh Tour De France bicycle which he had bought in Jamaica for $3,000.00 Jamaican currency, or $6,000.00 Belize currency. The frame of the bicycle was broken in the accident. It is not possible to obtain a frame in this Country and to obtain one in the United States of America would cost $1,000.00 U. S currency or $2,000.00 Belize currency.

The Plaintiff also gave evidence that his pair of eyeglasses and his watch were broken beyond repair as a result of the accident. He said that a new pair of eyeglasses would cost $165.00 and the cost of the watch, when he purchased it in 1975, was $350.00. Allowing for six years of wear and tear I would put the value of the watch at $175.00.

Plaintiff also gave evidence that his track suit was damaged a result of the accident and that the cost of replacement thereof is $50.00.

I accept the evidence as regards these items and consequently assess special damages in the sum of $2,390.00. Adding this sum to the sum of $2,000.00 hereinbefore mentioned as general damages I arrive at a total assessment of damages in the sum of $4,390.00.

Accordingly I award to the Plaintiff damages in the sum of $4,390.00.

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