clr/1984/1984_1_13.pdf

(1963)2 C.L.R. 429; NicolaidcsY.Economides

(1963)2 C.L.R. 78; HadjiPetriv. HadiGeorghiou

(1969)1 C.L.R. 326; Kkafa v. Kalorkotis

(1982)I C.L.R. 372at p. 378. Appeal. Appeal by plaintiff against thejudgment ofthe District Court cf Nicosia (Artemides, Ag. P.D.C.) dated the 4th February, 1983 (Action No. 2400/79) whereby she was awarded thesum of £355.- as special and general damages for injuries suffered by her as a result of an accident. 10 15 P. loct/mides,for the appellant. G. Pefaghias, for the respondent. Cur. adv. vu/f. HADJIANASTASSIOU J.: The judgment of the Court will be delivered by Mr. Justice Savvides. 20 SAVVIDES J.: This is an appeal against thejudgment of the District Court of Nicosia, by which a sum of £355.-was adjudged to appellant for special and general damages for injuries suffered by her as a result of a road traffic accident in which she was involved. The appeal is directed against the 25 findingof the trial Court whereby aclaim inrespect ofan alleged post-traumatic effect and in particular, over-perspiration of the hands, was rejected. The accident in respect of which the cause of action arose, occurred on 6.8.1977 when busTDY 334owned by respondent 30 2 and driven by respondent I, in which appellant was a passenger, went off the road and collided with an electric pole. The liability was admitted by respondents and the only issue which wasleft fordetermination bytheCourt, wasthe quantum of damages. 14 35 1 C.L.R. Achilleos \. Chanilambous Sattides.1, At the time of the accident the appellant was 16 years old. ;ind as a minor brought the action through her father as her natural guardian. The trial Court after hearing a number of witnesses called by 5 the parties, including the appellant, came to the conclusion that the only injuries that appellant proved were a small bruise above the left eye brow and slight concussion, and awarded to her the sum of £300.- as general damages. The trial Court. however, rejected her complaint that the over-perspiration ofher 10 hands was the result of the accident. On the date of the hearing of the action the appellant was21 years old and was working as an assistant hairdresser earning £76.-per month. She contended that dueto theover-perspiration of her hands, a symptom which as she alleged appeared a few months after the accident, she 15 could not carry her work properly and earn higher wages. The trial Court found as a fact that appellant's hands presented an over-perspiration which caused her inconvenience and anxiety and she had to carry with her tissue paper to dry them up. but was not satisfied that this suffering was either the result of 20 herinjury or that in any way it affected her work. In explaining the reason for reaching such conclusion, the learned trial Judge said in his judgment: 25 30 35 "It isadmitted that plaintiff suffered a very mild concussion and normally slight post-concussionaIsyndromes disappear in a relatively short time. It is a fact that Dr. Charalambides mentioned that the manifestation of post-concussional syndromes is different in respect of each person. both concerning the type and duration. On the totality, his evidence does not satisfy me to attribute the suffering of the plaintiff to the accident. My opinion does not rest only on the evidence of Dr. Charalambides but also on the evidence of the plaintiff which, as I have already found, has not proved satisfactory in many respects. Also, plaintiff herself mentioned that in connection with the overperspiration of her hands, she was examined by a numbcr ofdoctors, three of whom at the clinic of Dr. Christopoulos and also by Dr. Kessaris and others, but none of these doctors was called to give evidence on this subject". Though the learned trial Judge rejected appellant's claim for 40 over-perspiration of her hands, following the established pract15 sa*wde% J . \chiIleos v. Chardlautbous (198-4) ice, (see. Notolwdcs v. Eiononnda

(1963)2 C L . R 78, Pilavaki \ C\pius Inland Telecommunications Authority

(1963)2 C.L.R. 429. HadjiPetn ν Had/tGeorghiou ami Another

(1969)1 C.L.R. 5 26) pioceeded and assessed the damages to which the appel­ lant would have been entitled, had she proved her claim at 1.400 At the heaiing of this appeal counsel for appellant stated that he considered the amount awarded for concussion as satis­ factory and that the present appeal is not directed against such iward but against the findings of the trial Court in respect ol ->ver pci&piration and the quantum of damages which theCourt considered as sufficient m respect of such complaint, had the plainuli succeeded on such issue In diguing this appeal, counsel for the appellant contended that thi. trial C ouit ciioneousjy found that the ovcr-perspiration *f the plaintiff wa^ not due to the accident. There was evidence. .ounsei submitted, coming from the plaintiff and Dr. Charai.unhides which, considered with the rest of the evidence, leaves no doubt that the over-pet spiration is due to the accident and. theiJore. the finding of the trial Couit that the evidence was not satisfactory is un|uslificd. Finally, he concluded that the sum of £400 - whic'n the trial Louit found as satisfactory, in oasc the claim was accepted, is manifestly low, taking into consideration ine iindmgs of the tnal Court that three years aftei the accident this symptom continued to eKist and as a result, plaintiff was suffering Irem inconvenience and anxiety and also the fact that accoidmg to appellant's version, which has not been contiadicted, her working capacity as a hair­ dresser has been considerably diminished affecting her present and future earnings We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant but we find ourselves unable to accede to his submission that the finding of the trial Court that the plainlift failed to discharge the onus of proof that the over-perspiration of her hands was the result of the accident. was wrong. It was reasonably open to the learned trial Judge, fcr the reasons given m his judgment, to treat the evidence before him as insufficient to lead him to the conclusion that the over-perspiration was the result of the accident. We agree with his observation that though from the time when the first 16 I C.L.R. Achilleos >. Charalambou». Savtides J. symptoms appeared, some months after the accident, she was examined by Dr. Sofocleous, a specialist psychiatrist on the advice of the orthopaedic surgeon who treated her for the bruise and concussion, and by a number of other doctors, and that on 5 one occasion shewasexamined at the clinicof Dr. Christopoulos by a medical board, of three doctors, none of whom was called as a witness. The learned trial Judge, rightly took this factor into consideration in evaluating the evidence of the appellant. On the other hand, his finding that the evidence of Dr. Chara10 Iambides who examined the appellant three years after the accident, considered with the rest of the evidence before him and in particular the evidence of the appellant and the fact that no medical data were given by him leading to the conclusion that the over-perspiration was due to the anxiety appellant 15 continued to encounter due to the accident, was neither wrong nor unwarranted by the evidence before him. It has been held time and again that this Court will only mteifere with the findings of a trial Court if satisfied that such findings are not warranted by the evidence before it and that 20 the reasoning behind them is wrong. Such principle has been reaffirmed recently in Kkaja v. Kalorkotis and Another

(1982)I C.L.R. 372 in which Hadjianastassiou, J., at page 378. had this to say: 25 30 35 this. Court, when hearing and determining an appeal, is not bound by any determinations of questions of fact made by the trial Courts, and it has power to review the whole evidence m drawing its own inferences. But it will only do so, when a finding is not warranted by the evidence considered as a whole, and the reasoning behind a finding is unsatisfactory and/or is of the opinion that the trial Court was clearly wrong, and that the Court of Appeal should interfere to put right that which has gone wrong in the Court below, bearing always in mind that the making of such findings and the appreciation in general of the evidence at the trial is what the trial Judges are there for". Having perused the record we are satisfied that the findings of the trial Court are fully warranted by the evidence and we have not been persuaded that such findings were erroneous. 17 Siitvides J. \rhill«»s \. Chunilambous

(1984)We. therefore, see no valid reason for interfering with the judgment. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with no costs, as none have been claimed by counsel for respondent. Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs. 18 5