clr/1966/1966_1_280.pdf

1966 Nov. 25 [TRIANTAFYLMDI-S. STAVRINIDI'K J.J. & HADJIANASTASSIOU A C . J.] KYWAKo-iKusii "· K Y R I A C O S COSTI, Appellant-Defendant. ΚΛΠΚΙΝΛ ClIRISIOHlKUl! I. KATER1NA CHRISTOFOROU, Respondent-Plaintiff. {Civil Appeal No. 4582). Civil Wrongs Road Traffic -Negligence- Damages—Quantum— Personaf injuries received in a traffic accident—General da­ mages Finding of the trial Court regarding the quantum of the diminution of the earning capacity oj respondent Reason­ able and open to the trial Court on the totality of the material before it to find as it did Principles upon which the Court of Appeal nill interfere or not with such findings Principles reiterated inthe caseof Constantinides v.li/i loannou (repotted in t'u\ \ohm,c at p. Il)l ante)applied. Damages General damages for personal injuries—Quantum Find­ ing of trial Court regarding the quantum - Appeal against such findings Approach on appeal to awards of general da­ mages Principles applicable - Principles reiterated in the case of Constantinides v. Hji loannou (supra), applied—See. also. under Civil Wrongs above. Findings oj fact —Quantum of general damages—Approat h on appeal to awards of general damages—See above. Practice-Appeal—Findings of fact by the trial Courts regarding quantum of damages—Principles upon which the Court of Ap­ peal will interfere with such findings—See above. Cases referred to : Constantinides v. Hji loannou (reported in this vol. at p. 191 ante). Appeal. Appeal against the judgment of the District Court of Ni­ cosia (Dervish P.D.C. & Mavrommatis D.J.) dated ihc 21st April, 1966 (Action N o . 3008/63) whereby the plaintiff was awarded an amount of £1,000 by way of damages in respect of injuries she received in a traffic accident. 280 V. Sy/hmris, for ihc appellant. /. Mavromcolas, for the respondent. The iudgmcnl oi' the Court was delivered by : ΐ κ ί Λ Ν ΐ Μ YI.MDIK, J. : In this appeal the appcllant-defendam complains against the award of general damages, o f £1,000, made in favour o f the respondent-plaintiff, in res­ pect of injuries received in a traffic accident. The parties having reached agreement regarding the ap­ portionment of liability and the amount o f special damages, it was then left l o the trial Court to assess the amount o f general damages. The appellant has contended that the finding o f the trial Court to the effect that ihc respondent's earning capacity had been diminished by one third, as a result o f her injuries is cnoncou.-i and iigainsi the weight of evidence; and pai ocular­ ly against ihc weight o f medical opinion which was common ground belwt.cn the parlies, and which reads as follows (at page 1^ ol the record) : " T h e patient having had a ciushing injury on the first metatarsal, there is no doubt that she now has a post­ traumatic arthritis o f the j o i n t above and the joint below the fracture. As a result oi' this there will be pain in walking, but mostly the pain will be felt after exeilion. Taking into consideration her j o b (i.e. washer-woman) which entails prolonged standing, she will be somewhat inhibited and she will be in a position to carry out her job with a certain amount o f pain and discomfort. In our opinion the pain and discomfort arc o f a permanent nature. She must ha\e had a certain amount o f pain and suffering during the treatment and the two operalions Ίο-day's examination revealed no swelling o f the injured part ". (That examination was on the 21st A p r i l , 1966). We are o f the opinion that the trial Court had to quantify the diminution o f the earning capacity o f the respondent, on the basis o f all the material before it including, o f course, the medical opinion, and also any other evidence, such as the cudence o f respondent herself. We lake the view that on the totality o f the material before he Court it was reasonable and proper y open t o the t r i a l 281 l%6 Nov. 25 KYKIAKOS KOSTI n. KATFRINA CHRISTOFOROU 1966 Nov. 25 KYRIAKOS KOSTI P. KATERINA CHRISTOFOROU Court to find as it did, regarding the quantum of the diminution of the earning capacity of the respondent. Even if any member of this Court might have held a slightly difTerent view regarding such quantum, it is not for this Court to substitute its own evaluation of the relevant material, once we are of the opinion that it was reasonably open to the trial Court to reach the conclusion which it did reach, on the evidence before it. For these reasons the appeal fai's. There is, next, a cross-appeal by respondent who contends that the amount of damages awarded to her is inadequate, mainly on the ground that the trial Court has failed to take into account the earnings she has lost during the period between the filing of the statement of claim and the date of the trial. The trial Court has stated in its judgment that, in assessing general damages, it had in mind " all the circumstances of this case and especially the pain, suffering and inconvenience of the plaintiff, both past and future and her diminished earning capacity ". We sec no reason to accept that when the trial Court was taking into account both past and future pain, suffering and inconvenience, it did not likewise, address its mind to the totality of the question of the diminished earning capacity of respondent, including any loss of earnings which could not fairly be said to be covered by the agreement regardingspecial damages which had been reached between the parties. We, therefore, find that the trial Court has not misdirected itself in any way in this respect. Bearing, further, in mind the correct principle regarding the approach on appeal to awards of general damages, as such principle has been reiterated recently in cases such as Constantinidesv.Hjtloatmou,(reported in this Vol.at p. 191ante) and the cases referred totherein, we dofind that thereexists no proper ground requiring this Court to disturb the award of general damages made by the trial Court in this case. In the circumstances the cross-appeal fails also. The appeal and cross-appeal are hereby, dismissed with no order as to costs. Order in terms. 282