[STAVRINIDES L LOIZOU, A LOIZOU, 1975 March 2Θ JJ ] 1 AGATHANGELOS KAMARLINGOS, 2 LEONIDAS PAPETTAS, Appellants-Defendants, ν ANDREAS ECONOMIDFS ANDREAS ECONOMIDES, Respondent-Plaintiff (Civil Appeal No 5348; Damages—Special damages—Loss of earnings—No evident e rfiat plaintiff has suffered anv damages as a result of his absence from work—A ward set aside 5 10 IS 20 2S Damages—General damages—Personal injuries—Road act idem —Misconception bv trial judge as to plaintiff's residual mcapatit\ in tonsidermg certain injuries as causing permanent mcapacit\— A ward reduced The appeal on the issue of liability having been abandoned the argument before the Court of Appeal was confined to the item of £
- which was awarded by way of special damages for loss ol earnings and lo the amount of general damages As far as the tirst issue was concerned theie was no evidence before the trial judge that the plaintiff ha·. suffered any damage at all as a result of his absence from work for a period of si\ weeks None ot hi·. businesses had come to standstill during his absence but the trial judge awarded the said sum of £ 1 2 0 - be cause, as he said although he had no concrete figures for an> loss of earnings he telt that he had to makj an assessment as the plaintiff must ha\e inevitabU suffered damage due to this absence from his woik Even the plaintiff hmiselt did not suggest any tigureand he did not sa> definiieh, that he has suffered am damage, he meiel> said that if he were present he would probably have a laiger income As far as the amount of general damages is concerned the plaintiff m gmng evidence said that the onh pei manent mcapacit\ that had resulted was that he tould S7 \GATHANGELOS KAMARLINGOS AND ANOTHER 1975 March 28 AGATHANGELOS KAMARLINGOS AND ANOTHER V. ANDREAS ECONOMIDES not walk for accident. such distance as he could before the The trial judge in assessing the general damages con sidered the injury to plaintiffs shoulder and some post traumatic symptoms on his head, from the effects of 5 which he had been cured by the time the case went to trial, as causing him permanent incapacity too. Held, (I) With regard to the special damages : We find no justification for the conclusion reached by the learned trial judge in view of the evidence before him. We must agree with Counsel for the appellant that in the light of the evidence adduced this item of damages has not been proved. Held, (II) With regardto the amount of generaldamages:
- The learned trial judge in assessing the sum of 15 £600.- by way of general damages was labouring under a misconception as to plaintiffs residual incapacity in considering the injury to the shoulder and some post traumatic symptoms on the head as causing him per manent incapacity. 20
- In view of this we think that the sum of £600.should be reduced by one third to £
- Appeal partly allowed. Appeal. Appeal by defendants against the judgment of the 25 District Court of Nicosia (Papadopoulos, S.D.J.) dated the 11th September, 1974, (Action No. 4331/72) whereby they were ordered to pay to the plaintiff the sum of £1,620.- by way of damages for negligence in a motor car accident. 30 A. Soitpashis for Ph. derides, for the appellant. Κ. Michaeiides, for the respondent. J. : The judgment of the Court will be delivered by Mr. Justice L. Loizou. STAVRINTDES, L. Loizou, J. : This is an appeal from the judgment 35 of the District Court of Nicosia whereby the appellant was adjudged to pay a total of £1,620.- by way of damages for negligence in a motorcar accident case. 58 Before the commencement of the trial certain items of damage were agreed; the damage to plaintiffs motorcar was agreed at £800.- and the medical expenses at £100.-, both items on a full liability basis, and the issue that 5 the trial Court had to decide in so far as the claim for damages was concerned was an item for £360.- listed in the pleadings under the heading of special damages as loss of earnings and the amount of general damages. The question of liability was also in issue. 10 The learned trial Judge found appellant wholly to blame for the accident and, in addition to the items of damages agreed, awarded £600.- by way of general damages and £120.- for loss of earnings. The appeal was originally based on three grounds, 15 namely
(1)against the decision of the trial Judge with regard to liability,
(2)against the award of £600.- as general damages which appellant claims is excessive and
(3)against the award of the sum of £120.- for loss of earnings which, it is claimed, has not been satisfactorily 20 proved. The appellant has today, before the commencement of the appeal, very sensibly in our view, abandoned his appeal in so far as the issue of liability was concerned and the argument before this Court was confined to 25 the amount of general damages awarded and also to the item of £120.- which was awarded by way of special damages for loss of earnings. We have considered the case very carefully in the light of the arguments advanced by learned counsel and 30 it is our unanimous view that the appellant must succeed on both grounds. With regard to ground 3 i.e. the sum awarded for loss of earnings we have to observe that there is no evidence whatsoever that the plaintiff—respondent in this 35 Court— has suffered any damage at all as a result of his absence from work for a period of six weeks. It appears from the evidence that the plaintiff, who was about 53 at the material time, was running a motorcar spare parts shop together with his brother and also a 40 cosmetics shop alone in which he had an employee as a salesman and, in addition, he had an orange grove at 59 1975 March 28 AGATHANGELOS KAMARLINGOS AND ANOTHER V. ANDREAS ECONOMIDES 1975 ^_ Morphou where at the time some labourers were engaged in collecting citrus fruit. None of his businesses had to c o m e t o a AGATHANGELOS standstill during his absence but the learned KAMARLINGOS trial Judge saw fit to award this sum of £120.- because, AND ANOTHER a s n e s a y S m j^s judgment, although he had no concrete ν figures for any loss of earnings he felt that he had to ANDREAS make an assessment as the plaintiff must have inevitably ECONOMIDES suffered damage because of his absence from work. ar We find no justification for this conclusion in view of the evidence before the learned trial Judge. The res- 10 pondent himself far from suggesting any figures at ail or saying definitely that he did suffer any damage merely said in the course of his evidence that if he were present he probably would have a larger income. We do feel that we must agree with learned counsel for the appel- 15 lant that in the light of the evidence adduced this item of damages has not been proved. With regard to ground 2 i.e. the question of general damages, the plaintiff himself in giving evidence on oath said that from the injuries he had suffered the only 20 permanent incapacity that had resulted was that he could not walk for such distance as he could before the accident. He explained that when he walked for a distance of four or five miles he felt pain in his knee. The medical evidence with regard to his condition is 25 to this effect: "Although his condition has improved considerably as regards his head injury, teeth and right shoulder the present objective findings from the left knee should be considered as permanent and will give him symptoms from discomfort to real aching after prolonged 30 loading of the joint or when exposed to weather changes". The learned trial Judge as it clearly appears from his judgment in assessing the sum of £600.- by way of general damages was labouring under a misconception a* to respondent's residual incapacity in considering the 35 injury to the shoulder and some post-traumatic symptoms on the head as causing him permanent incapacity. These were injuries from the effects of which he had been cured by the time the case went to trial. In view of this we think that the sum of £600.- awarded by way of general 4 0 damages should be reduced by one third to £400.- To 60 this extent the appeal succeeds and the judgment of the trial Court is varied accordingly. In the result the damages awarded are reduced by £320.- to £1,300. With regard to costs in this Court we think that it will be fair to award two thirds of the costs to the appellant. Appeal partly allowed. Orderfor costs as above. 61 1975 March 28 AGATHANGELOS KAMARLINGOS AND ANOTHER ANDREAS ECONOMIDES