clr/1983/1983_1_996.pdf

(1983)currency in which thedamage was incurred or wastobe incurred without conversion into Cyprus currency—Applicable in this caserate of conversion agreed upon by the parties. The respondent-plaintiff, who was a passenger in a car driven by the third party, was injured in a collision between this car 5 and a car driven by the appellant-defendant. He was a technician of watches in his early forties. As a result of the accident he sustained a moderate concussion and cervical injuries that have given him considerable pain and have caused a permanent limitation of the movements of the neck. Further he suffered 10 bruising with possible minor fracture of the ribs in the region of the 9th to the 12th rib on the left side, an injury that has caused him a degree of discomfort. The most serious injury wasacompound injury tothe left kneethat hascaused a moderately severepermanent disablement. He experienced headaches 15 and dizziness over a long period of time, extending up to a year and a half, and has had to give up many of the pleasures oflife asa result of hisinjuries, mainly hisengagement insports, like refereeing football matches, skiingand playingtennis. Asa result of the accident he was totally incapacitated from doing 20 anywork for aperiod ofthreemonthsandpartially incapacitated for a further period of three months. The trial Court found that the collision was caused solely by the negligent driving of the appellant, who drove his car in a manner cutting acrossthe path ofthe car which was driven 25 by the third party, and that the third party was not guilty at all of contributory negligence. Such finding was based on evidence which the trial Court, after having seen the witnesses who testified before it, accepted as credible and on reasonably open to it inferences which were 30 drawn from facts that had been established by such evidence and, also, from the real evidence in this case. TherespondentwasawardedC£415asagreedspecialdamages, 6,000,000 Italian lire for loss of earnings during the period when he was incapacitated from working, 7,500,000 Italian lire 35 for future loss of earnings and C£5,000 as general damages for pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life. Theaforementioned twoamounts ofItalianlirewereconverted 884 I C.L.R. Pafitis v. Bonifacio by the trial Court into C£3,960 and C£4,950f respectively, on the basis of the rate of exchange which was in force at, approximately, the time when the collision occurred. 5 10 Upon appeal by the defendant on the issues of liability and damages Counsel for the appellant complained, also, that the two amounts which were awarded for losses of earnings were converted from Italian lire into Cyprus pounds at the rate of exchangewhichwas in force at the time ofthe collision and not at that whichwas in force at the timewhenthe trial Court gave its judgment. Itappeared, however,that thepartieswerein agreement before . the trial Court regarding the applicable rate of exchange. 15 20 25 30 35 Held,

(1)that this Court hasnot been persuaded bythe appellant that it should interfere with either the findings of the trial Court as to the credibility of witnesses or with the inferences drawn by it; and that, therefore, it will uphold the finding of the trial Court on the issue of the liability for the collision.

(2)That in the light ofthetotality ofthe material on the basis of which the trial Court has assessed the damages payable to the plaintiff, and bearing in mind the well-founded principles which govern the exercise on appeal of the relevant powers of this Court there is no reason at all to interfere with the damages which were assessed by the trial Court.

(3)That this was, indeed, a case in which, in the light of the principles oflaw,expounded in,inter alia,thecaseof The Despina R., [1979] 1All E.R. 421,the amounts awarded as damages in respect of past and future losses of earnings could have been awarded in the foreign currency—the Italian lira—in which the damage was incurred or was to be incurred, without conversion into Cyprus currency (and see, inter alia, in this connection, J.Y.A. Lamaignere v. Selene Shipping AgenciesLimited,

(1982)1 C.L.R. 227 at pp. 234, 235); that in view of the agreement of the parties regarding the applicable inthis case rate of exchange it isnotnecessaryto consider and decideinthis casewhat would have been the appropriate rate of exchange in a case of this nature had there been no agreement between the parties in tins connection; accordingly the appeal must be dismissed. Appeal dismissed. 885 Pafitis v. Bonifacio

(1983)Cases referred to: Mentesh v. HadjiDemetriou

(1983)I C.L.R. I at pp. 8.9; Panayiotou v. Christofi

(1983)I C.L.R. 143 at p. 150; Municipalityof Nicosia v. Kythreotis

(1983)1 C.L.R. 154 at pp. 173, 174; 5 Papadopoullos \. Pericleous

(1980)1 C.L.R. 576 at p. 579; Cyprus Palestine Plantations Co. Ltd. v. Leandrou

(1982)I C.L.R. 880 at pp. 892, 893; Morgans v. Launchbury [1972] 2 All E.R. 606; Neocleous v. Christodoulou

(1979)1 C.L.R. 714 at pp. 724-25; 10 The DespinaR. [1979] 1 All E.R. 421; J.Y.A. Lamaignere v. Selene Shipping Agencies Ltd.

(1982)1 C.L.R. 227 at pp. 234,

1. Appeal. Appeal by defendant against the judgment of the District 15 Court of Lamaca (Pikis, P.D.C. and Artemis, D.J. ) dated the 2nd November, 1978(Action No. 61/73)whereby he was ordered to pay to the plaintiff the amount of C£14,325.~ as damages in respect of injuries which he sustained in a traffic accident. L. Papaphilippou, for the appellant-defendant. 20 M. Vassiliou, for the respondent-plaintiff. A. Andreou, for the respondent-third party. Cur. adv. vult. TRIANTAFYLLIDESP. read the followingjudgment of the Court. The appellant, who was the defendant at the trial of this case 25 before the District Court of Lamaca, has appealed against the judgment of The trial Court by means of which he was ordered to pay to the respondent-plaintiff (to be referred to hereinafter as the "plaintiff") the amount of C£14,325as damages in respect of injuries which the plaintiff sustained in a traffic accident, 30 when a car (DG99) which was being driven by the appellant collided with a car (ZFU72) which was being driven by the respondent-third party (to be referred to hereinafter as the "third party"), on the 30th December
2. At the time the plaintuf wae travelling as a passenger in the 35 car of the third party, who was his fiancee. The trial Court found that the collision was caused solely by 886 I C.L.R. Pafitis v. Bonifacio Triantafjllides .
3. the negligent driving of the appellant, who drove his car in a manner cutting across the path of the car which was driven by the third party, and that the third party was not guilty at all of contributory negligence. 5 In the light of the principles governing the exercise, in a case of this nature, of our powers as an appellate tribunal (see, inter alia, in this respect, Menteshv. HadjiDemetriou,

(1983)1 C.L.R. 1,8,9, Panayiotouv. Christoji,{\%3) 1C.L.R. 143, 150,and the Municipality of Nicosia v. Kythreotis,

(1983)1 C.L.R. 154, 10 [73, 174),and after having examined all the relevant submissions of counsel for the parties, we have reached the conclusion that we should uphold the aforesaid finding of the trial Court on the issue of the liability for the collision in question. Such findingwas based on evidence which the trial Court, after having ^ 15 seen the witnesses who testified before it, accepted as credible and on reasonably open to it inferences which were drawn from facts that had been established by such evidence and, also, from the real evidence in this case; and we have not been persuaded by the appellant that we should interfere with either 20 the findings of the trial Court as to the credibility of witnesses or with the inferences drawn by it as aforesaid (and see, in this respect, inter alia, Papadopoullos v. Pericleous,

(1980)1C.L.R. ^ y 576, 579, The CyprusPalestinePlantations Co.Ltd. v. Leandrou,

(1982)1 C.L.R. 880, 892, 893 and the Municipality of Nicosia 25 case, supra). We might observe, too, that we agree with the trial Court that, in the circumstances of this case and on the basis of the ^ relevant principles of law which were expounded in Morgans v. Launchbury, [1972J 2 All E.R. 606, the plaintiff could not, 30 in any event, be found to be vicariously liable for any contributory negligence of the third party, even assuming that it could have been held that the third party was guilty of such negligence. As regards the injuries which were suffered by the plaintiff ^· and their adverse for him after-effects we find it useful to quote ": 35 the following passage from the judgment of the trial Court which, in our view, corresponds accurately to relevant evidence * which was found by the trial Court to be reliable: "At the time of the accident the plaintiff was in his early forties, a technician of watches engaged in the repair and t, 887 Triantaf>Hides P. Pafitis v. Bonifacio (19S3) valuation of antique clocks and watches. He was running his own business that took him at times to several parts of the world, mainly for the purpose of valuing antique • objects of his speciality. As a result of the accident he suffered a moderate concussion and cervical injuries that 5 have given him so far considerable pain and have caused a permanent limitation of the movements οι- the neck, as described in tlie Medical certificate. Further he suffered bruising with possible minor fracture of the ribs in the region of the 9th to the 12th rib on the left side, an injury !0 that has caused him a degree of discomfort. By far the most serious injury was die compound injury to the left knee that has caused, in the words of the doctors, 'a moderately severe permanentdisablement', a disablement that would have far gieater repercussions on the earning 15 capacity of the plaintiff had it not been for thefact that his job is a sedentary one. As the plaintiff testified, and he is supported by the doctors, he experienced headaches and dizziness over a long period of time, extending up to a year and a half, and has had to give up many of the 20 pleasures of life as a result of his injuries, mainly his engage­ ment in sports, like refereeing football matches, skiing and playing tennis. The picture that emerges is that plaintiff, at a fairly early stage of his life, at a stage to which some would refer as the prime of his life, was crippled and 25 had to endure considerable pain and discomfort as well as experience, on a permanent basis, the loss of those pleasures that are associated with sports. As a result of the accident he was totally incapacitated from doing any work for a period of three months and partially 30 incapacitated for a further period of three months". The plaintiff was awarded C£415 as agreed special damages, 6,000,000 Italian lire for loss of earnings during the period when he was incapacitated from working, 7,500,000 Italian lire for future loss of earnings and C£5,000 as general damages for 35 pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life. The aforementioned two amounts of Italian lire were inverted by the trial Court into C£3,960 and C£4,950, respect­ ively, on the basis of the rate of exchange which was in force at, approximately, the time when the collision occurred. 888 40 \ 1 C.L.R. Pafitis v. Bonifacio Triantafyllidcs P. In the light of the totality ofthematerial on the basis of which the trial Court has assessed the damages payable to the plaintiff, and bearing in mind the well-founded principles which govern the exercise on appeal of our relevant powers (see, inter alia, 5 in this respect, Neocleousv. Christodoulou,

(1979)1C.L.R. 714, 724, 725 and the Mentesh case, supra, 11, 12), we see no reason at all to interfere with the damages which were assessed by the trial Court. There remains to be dealt with, next, the complaint of the 10 appellant that the two amounts which were awarded, as aforesaid, for losses of earnings were converted from Italian lire into Cyprus pounds at the rate of exchange which was in force at the time of the collision and not at that which was in force at the time when the trial Court gave its judgment. 15 This was, indeed, a case in which, in the light of the principles of law expounded in, inter alia, the case of The Despina R., [1979] 1 All E.R. 421, the amounts awarded as damages in respect of past and future losses of earnings could have been awarded in the foreign currency—the Italian lira—in which 20 the damage was incurred or was to be incurred, without conversion into Cyprus currency (and see, inter alia, in this connection, J.Y.A. Lamaignere v. Selene Shipping Agencies Limited,

(1982)1 C.L.R. 227, 234, 235). In the present case, however, the trial Court after having 25 assessed the losses of earnings in the relevant foreign currency, and having used such foreign currency in awarding damages in this respect, it proceeded, as it was entitled to do,'to convert the amounts in question to Cyprus pounds. As it appears from the material before us the trial Court 30 converted Italian lireinto Cypruspounds at the rate of exchange prevailing about a month after the occurrence of the accident and in doing so it relied on a statement from the Central Bank of Cyprus indicating such rate, which was produced before the trial Court immediately after the conclusion of the hearing of 35 the case by counsel appearing for the plaintiff; and the relevant record of the Court reads asfollows: "Vassiliou appears before the Court and produces a statement from the Central Bank, signed by Mr. Mitsides as well, indicating the rate of exchange 889 Triantaf}Hides P. Pafitis \. Bonifacio

(1983)at the material time, i.e. as at 30th January 1973. He further informs the Court that Mr. Andreou agrees to its contents as well". On the statement in question there appears in his own handwriting and signed by him the following note by Mr. Mitsides: "No objection to the production". Mr. M. Vassiliou has appeared for the plaintiff in this appeal, loo, and Mr. A. Andreou has, likewise, appeared for the third parry, but Mr. G. Mitsides has not appeared in this appeal for the appellant; and Mr. L. Papaphilippou, who has appeared instead of him, has argued that the circumstances in which the 10 statement concerned was produced before the trial Court did not establish an agreement on the part of Mr. Mitsides, as regards the applicable rate of exchange, but only an agreement for the production of the said statement. The trial Court stated the following, in this respect, in its 15 judgment: "We have before us an agreed exchange rate table that enables us to convert Italian Lire into Cyprus pounds". Wethink that the trial Court, quitejustifiably inthe particular circumstances, treated the production of the statement from the Central Bank as signifying an agreement of all the parties 20 as regards the applicable rate of exchange of Italian lire into Cyprus pounds and proceeded to convert accordingly into Cypruspounds thedamages for past andfuture lossesof earnings which it had calculated in Italian lire. We cannot agree with the submission of counsel for the 25 appellant that Mr. Mitsides did not agree about the applicable rate of exchange, because if he did in fact wish to object to the applicability of the rate of exchange shown on the aforementioned statement from the Central Bank and had consented only to the production of such statement, he could, and should, 30 have indicated clearly that this was so by phrasing appropriately the note which he made on the said statement, and he has not done this. In view of the agreement of theparties, as aforesaid, regarding the applicable in this case rate of exchange we do not think 35 that it isnecessary toconsider and decidein this casewhat would 890 5 Ϊ C.L.R. Pafitis >. Bonifacio Triantafyllides Ρ· have been the appropriate rate of exchange in a case of this nature had there been no agreement between the parties in this connection.· For all the foregoing reasons this appeal fails and it 5 is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed with casts. 891