(1984)I 1983 February 1 [TRIANTAFYLLIDES,P., DEMETRIADES, SAVVIDES, JJ.] GALANOS BROS. LTD., Appellants-Defendants, v. LEONIDAS HADJiCHRISTODOULOU, Respondent-Plaintiff. (CivilAppeal No.6335). Damages—General damages—Personal injuries—Partial amputation of thedistalphalanxof leftindexfinger—Manual labourer aged 52—His employability not affected but he willbe permanently handicappedwhenever liehas toliftbigorheavyarticles ortogrip smallordelicateobjects with theleftindexandthumb—Permanent 5 stiffnessandloss ofmobility of left index andloss ofsensation of pulpof the index—Considerablepain andsufferingfrom the injury andleft witha deformedindex—Repeatedlifting ofheavy articles or climaticchanges willcausehimpain and capacity for work diminished—Award of £1000 reducedto £800.-. 10 The respondent met with an accident at work, whilst in the employment of the appellants and sustained injuries. The trialCourtfoundthathesuffered partialamputationofthedistal phalanx of the left indexfinger. Thewholevolar aspect ofthis " phalanx was missing, morethan half of the nail and of the nail 15 bed were also missing and there was a comminuted fracture of the distal bone phalanx. Hewas 52years of ageat thetimeof the accident and a manual labourer. The trial Court further found that althoughhisemployabilitydidnotseemtobe affected and hadnotbeen affected sofar hewouldpermanently behandi- 20 capped in his work as a porter of goods and in his private life whenever be had to lift big or heavy articles or to gripsmall or delicate objects withtheleft indexandthumb. Repeated lifting of heavy articles or climaticchanges would causehim pain and his capacity of work was diminished. He had permanent stiff- 25 nessandlossofmobilityoftheleft indexandlossofsensationof 160 1 C.L.R. Galanos Bros Ltd. τ. Hadjichristodoulou the pulp of the index. Hehad considerable pain and suffering from his injury and he was left with a deformed index. Hewas awarded a.sum of£1000as generaldamages andupon appeal by the employers it was contended on their behalf: 5 (a) Thatthefindings of the trial Courtthattheappellants were solely to blame for the accidentwere wrong and that in any event on the evidence adduced theCourt oughttohave foundthe respondentpartly toblame for the accident. 10 (b) Thatinview ofthe findings ofthe trialCourtasregards the injuries that the respondent suffered and their after-effects, the amount of £1,000.- awarded tohim as general damages was excessive. 15 20 Held, (I)that thefindings of the trial Court were fully warranted by the evidence before it; accordingly contention (a) must fail.
(2)That considering the findings of the trial Court on the issueof general damages theamountof such damages should be reduced from £1,000 to £800. Appeal partly allowed. Appeal. Appeal by defendants against the judgment of the District Court of Limassol (Pitsillides, S.D.J.) dated the 8th October, 1981 (Action No. 76/79) whereby they were adjudged to pay 25 £1,350.- as special and general damages to the plaintiff for injuries he suffered in an accident whilst in the employment of the defendants. A. Adamides, for the appellants. A. LemiSyfor the respondent. 30 TRIANTAFYLLIDES P.: TheJudgment of the Couit will be delivered by Mr. Justice Demetriades. DEMETRIADES J.: The appellants in this appeal weie the defendants inAction No. 76/79of theDistrictCourtof Limassol and they were adjudged to pay £1,350.- special and general 35 damages having been found totally to blame for the accident in which the respondent was involved whilst in their employ- 161 Demetriades J. Galanos Bros Ltd. v. Hadjichristodoulou
(1984)ment. Their complaint before us, as this can be summarised from the grounds of appeal filed, is that the trial Court— (
- a)assessed wrongly the evidence as to how the accident with which the respondent met occurred (as, in the light of the evidence, the danger to which the 5 respondent was exposed was well known to him); (
- b)acceptedwrongly that therespondent could not foresee and/or assess theconsequences of the work and avoid the accident or reduce its consequences; (
- c)on the evidence adduced ought to have found that the 10 respondent was solely to blame and/or contributed to the accident; and (
- d)assessed wrongly the medical evidence and, in particular, the evidence regarding the injuries and the degree of incapacity of the respondent and thus 15 awarded to him excessive general .damages. The facts of the case as found by the trial Judge were the following:"On 12.12.1978 the plaintiff was taken from Limassol to Nicosia with a lorry of the defendant*, the driver of which 20 was Photis Kyriakou (D.W.2), also in the regular employment ofthe defendants. Thelorry wasloaded at Limassol with bundles of paper sheets which were intended to be unloaded at the storehouse of the defendants at Nicosia by means of afork-lift. Thepaper sheetsin these bundles 25 wereflatand each bundle wasfastened on both sideswith wooden planks. They were large and heavy and could not be handled by one person alone. On arrival at the storehouse, some of the bundles weieplaced on the forklift which was driven by Nicolas Pashias Mavros (D.W.3), 30 who was also in the employment of the defendants. The fork-lift was intended to be driven into the storehouse for unloading; but when its driver reached th; door of the storehouse it was found that the door was not wide enough for the fork-lift to enter and all the three men 35 decided to lift each bundle with their hands, to place it upright on the ground and to tip it through the door into thestorehouse. When,however,theylifted thefirstbundle 162 1 C.L.R. 5 10 15 20 Galanos Bros Ltd. v. Hadjlchrislodoulou Demetriades J. they found that the side of the bundle which was facing the door was wider than the door and they decided to let it drop back on the fork-lift and to turn it by pushing sideways so as the narrower side would face the door. Upon this, the driver of the lorry Photis Kyriakou gave the order to let it drop and when dropped, the left index finger of the plaintiff was caught between the bundle and a projecting piece of iron of the fork-lift. This caused partial amputation of the distal phalanx of this finger. According to the plaintiff, only Photis and himself lifted the bundle, whereas, according to Photis and also according to the driver of the fork-lift Nicolas Mavros, all threeof them lifted it. According also to the plaintiff, as soon as Photis gave the order to let the bundle drop, Photis let it drop and he (i.e. the plaintiff), felt extra weight which he could not bear and which forced his hands downwards. That the bundle was dropped as soon as Photis gave the order, is also stated by Nicolas Mavros whose evidence on this point is that as'soon as Photis gave the order, himself and Photii automatically let it drop; but the plaintiff did not manage to do so at the same time with them". Thetrial Court, after givingthe abovesummary of the circumstances under which the accident took place, reached the conclusion that the respondent "was not allowed sufficient opportu25 nity tolet the bundle drop simultaneously with the others so as to move his hands out of the danger of being caught under the bundle". Regarding the allegation of the appellants that the respondent knew or should have known that there was a dangerous project30 ion on the fork-lift and that he was negligent in not keeping his hands away from it, the Court had this to say:- 35 "About this,Photis Kyriakou stated that heand the plaintiff worked many times with this fork-lift and the plaintiff should have known about the projecting iroi piece. However, I bear in mind that when the plaintiff took hold of the bundle for lifting it with the other two men, they all intended to remove it from the fork—lift for storing intothe 163 Demetriades J. Galanos Bros Ltd. *. Hadjichristodouloa
(1984)storehouseandthepossibilityofplacingitbackon the forklift could not have crossed their minds. Therefore, it made no difference for the plaintiff, at that time, where his left hand would grip the bundle so as to mind for the projectingironpieceofthefork-lift. Further,asthesudden 5 extraweighton hishandswasbeyondhispowertocontinue keeping the bundle lifted up, it was, no doubt, equally beyond his power to keephisleft hand awayfrom theiron piece". Withregard to thesystemofwork,thetrial Court found that 10 the respondent was at the time engaged in one of his normal and regular duties; that there was nothing wrong or unusual either with the system or with the place of work; that theway inwhichthesystemwasatthetimecarried out bytheothertwo employees of the appellants was negligent and that it was in 15 direct consequence of this negligent way that the respondent was injured. The trial Court further found that the iron piece which projected from the fork-lift which was used for the loading was a danger to the hands of the employees of the appellants who were engaged in loading and unloading goods, 20 and that th; appellants ought to have reasonably foreseen this danger. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the above findings of the trial Court werewrongand that in any event or theevidenceadducedtheCourtoughttohavefound therespond- 25 ent partly to blame for the accident. Having heard the submissions of counsel for the appellants on this issue and having carefully gone through the record of the evidence before us, we have come to the conclusion that the findings of the trial Court were fully warranted by the 30 evidence before it. The appeal, therefore, on this issue fails. Wenow propose to dealwith theground of appeal regarding the medical evidence and its assessment by the trial Court, which, in the submission of the appellants, led it to award an excessive amount of general damages. Counsel for theappellantsdidnot disputetheinjuries suffered bythe respondent and their after-effects, which the trial Court, on the basis of the evidence of the doctor who treated him, described as follows:164 35 1 C.L.R. 5 10 15 20 25 30 Galanos Bros Ltd. v. Hadjichristodoulou Demetriades J . "Partial amputation of the distal phalanx of the left index finger, the whole volar aspect of this phalanx was missing, more than half of the nail and of the nail bed were also missing and therewas a comminutedfracture of the distal bone phalanx. On the next day Dr. Ioannou performed on the plaintiff a plastic skin graft operation, heimmobi lised theindexinaplaster of Parisanddischargedhimhome on 18.12.1978. Dr. Ioannou assessed his condition for the last time on 6.1.1981 when the plaintiff complained of stiffness of theleft index,oflossof sensation inthedistal part of the index, of pain when trying to make a strong gripandofpain inclimaticchanges. Theobjective findings of Dr. Ioannou are: slight deformity of the distal part oftheleft indexandofthecorrespondingnail,lossof flexion of the proximal phalanx, loss of mobility of the distal phalanx, the sensation to the pin prick and to light touch is seriously impairedandwhengripping theleft indexstands off full flexioi. According further to Dr. Ioannou, ini tially the plaintiff suffered great deal of pain andinconvenience, there is permanent residual stiffness of the interphalangcal joint of the index, loss of sensation of the pulp of theindex,weakness of the gripping power andcomplete inability for light and delicate use of theend of the index, such as taking small objects or fine articles, there is 30% to 40% loss of the normal mobility of both the two joints of the index finger, his capacity for work is diminished, weather conditionswill affect his capaicity of work and he has difficulty in lifting big or heavy articles and in gripping small or delicate articles with the index and thumb. Dr. Ioannou fuithsr stated that all his objective findings will remain permanent". The trial Judge in hisjudgment made reference, also, to an examination of the respondent carried out by another ortho paedicsurgeon Dr.Elias Georghiou,whose evidence apparently 35 theJudge did not accept. Having rejected theevidence of this doctor, the Couit,in dealing with theissue of general damages, had this to say:- 40 "I shall now proceed to assess the general damages. On the day of the accident the plaintiff was 52 years of age. He is a manual labourer. Although his employability 165 **£*&&*Ζι: Demetriades J. Galanos Bros Ltd. v. Hadjichristodoulou
(1984)does not seem to be affected and has not been affected so far, he will permanently be handicapped in his work as a porter of goods and in his private life whenever he has to lift big or heavy articles or to grip small or delicate objects with the left index and thumb. Repeated lifting 5 of heavy articles or climatic changes will cause him pain and his capacity of work is diminished. Hehas permanent stiffness and loss of mobility of the left index and loss of sensation of the pulp of the index. He had considerable pain and suffering from his injury and he is left with a 10 deformed index". And, onthebasis of thisfindingheawarded to the respondent the sum of £1,000.- as general damages. Counsel for the appellants submitted that in view of the findings of the trial Court as regards the injuries that the 15 respondent suffered and their after-effects, ihe amount of £1,000.- awarded to him as general damages is excessive. We are in agreement with him and having considered the findings of th; trial Court on this issu;, we have decided to reduc; th; amount of general damages from £1,000.- to £800.-. 20 On thisamount the sum of£350.-agreed special damages should be added. There will be, therefore, judgment in favour of the respondent for £1,150.- but there will be no order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed withno 25 order as to costs. 166