(1988)19fc*iNovember29 (SAWIDES, KOURRISANDBOYIADJIS. JJ) FROSOULLASAWA, Appellant-Plaintiff, ν ROGEROSSAWIDES ANDANOTHER, Respondents-Defendants (CivilAppeal No 7082) Damages — General damages for personal injunes — Loss of future earnings— Multiplier— Purpose of— Pnnciples applicable Damages — General damages forpersonal injunes —Named woman aged33 — Crushing injurytoleftthigh,whichcausednecrosisofsoft tissues of its entire medial side,sprain of lower back,tnggenng off 5 back ache episodes, three operations and two further plastic operations, prolonged pain and suffenng by reason of the thigh injury,left with big scars on thigh, expenencing pulling and sharp burningsensations, willcontinue to have backpainpenodicallv and her left leg swollen, unless she often restsor wears an elasticsock, ifj thus diminishing her capacity to work - Award of £3,400 — Increasedto £4,200 Appeal — General damages for personal injunes — Interference with, onappeal — Pnnciples applicable The facts of this case appear sufficiently in tne hereinabove headnote Appeal allowed withcosts Cases referred to Manoh ν Evnpidou
(1968)1CLR 130, Jemalv ZimIsraelNavigationCo Ltd 309, andAnother[l968)lCLR Constantinou ν Salachouns
(1969)1CLR 416, Paraskevaides (Overseas)Ltd ν Chnstofi
(1982)1CLR 789 682 5 1 C.L.R. S a w a v. S a w i d e s & Another Appeal. Appeal byplaintiff against thejudgment of the DistrictCourt ol Nicosia (Demetriou, Ag. P.D.C.) dated the 22nd October, 1985 (Action No.2499/83) whereby the sum of£4,175.-was awarded 5 to him as special and general damages for injuries sustained in a traffic accident. P.Ioannides, for the appellant. Ph. Valiantis, for the respondent. Cur. adv. vult. 10 SAWIDES J.: The judgment of the Court willbe delivered by Mr.Justice Kourris. KOURRISJ.: Thisisan appeal bythe appellant-plaintiff from the• Judgment ofa Judge ofthe District Court of Nicosia whereby the plaintiff was awarded the sum of £3,400 general damages and 15 £775 special damages for injuries she sustained in a traffic accident. The appeal isdirected against the award of special and general damages. The principles on which this Court acts in appeals against the quantum of damages have been repeatedly referred to in several 20 cases, some of which are Manoli v. Evripidou
(1968)1 C.L.R. 130; EmirJema! v. Zim IsraelNavigation Co. Ltd. and Another,
(1968)1C.L.R. 309;Constantinou v.Salachouris
(1969)1C.L.R. 416. The principle is that this Court would not be justified in disturbing the finding of the trial Court on the question of the 25 amountofdamagesunlessitisconvinced eitherthatthetrialCourt acted upon some wrong principle of law or that the amount awardedwassoextremelyhighorsoverysmallastomakeitinthe Judgment of this Court an entirely erroneous estimate of the damagestowhich the plaintiff isentitled. 30 Theplaintiff, on 13.4.1982,wasinvolved inatraffic accident as a resultofwhich the rearwheel ofthecarran overherleft leg and shesuffered aseriouscrushinginjurytoherleftthighwhich caused necrosisofthesofttissuesofitsentiremedialsideandsprainofher lower back which hastriggered off back ache episodes.The back 35 pain she experiences isdue to degeneration of the lumbar spine. Thisobviouslypre-existedtheinjury, butthesymptomshavebeen triggeredoffbytheinjury.ShewastakentotheEvrychou Hospital 683 Kourris J. S a w a v. S a w i d e s &Another
(1988)and due'toiiie seriousness of her injuries was transferred from Evrychou to Nicosia General Hospital. Due to the soft tissue necrosis and sepsis of the crushed medial part of the thigh, the plaintiff underwent three operations and subsequently she had two successive plastic operations for the re-surfacing of the raw 5 soft tissue defect on her thigh. She was discharged from the hospital on 17.7.1982 whereshe continued havingtreatmenton an out-patient basis. The thigh injury was the most serious and. troublesome anditcaused herprolongedpainandsuffering. The plaintiff made a good recoverybutshewasleft withbigscarson 10 the left thigh and experiences pulling and sharp burning sensations which restrict her mobility and upset her welfare. Further, shewillcontinuetohaveback pain periodicallyandhei left legwillgetswollenunlessshewillrestinaraisedpositionona chair or wear an elastic sock, thus diminishing her capacity for 15 work. ThetrialCourt found thattheplaintiff whowas33yearsatthe time of the accident with four children, was working with her husband assistinghiminhisjobasasilver-smith. Generaldamagesareawardedforthephysicalinjury, painand 20 suffering, lossof amenity of life, and the lossof future earnings. Themultiplierisusedinordertoreducetheelementofuncertainty and provide an objective basis for the assessment of damages. Pikis,J. indeliveringtheJudgmentoftheCourtinParaskevaides (Overseas)Limitedv.Christofi,
(1982)1 C.L.R.789atp.794,said 25 the following: «Themultiplier isintended toreduce,sofar asreasonand commonsensemakeitpossible,theelementofuncertaintyin theprocessandprovideanobjectivebasisfortheassessment of damage while inducing, atthe same time, an element of 30 uniformity inthe awards.Themultiplier ischosenprimarily, butnotexclusively,byreferencetotheageandstateofhealth of the injured party and to a lesser extent his employment prospects. Hisage isthefirstdenominator.Thenatureofhis work and the hazards associated with it though secondary 35 constitute nonetheless important indicators on future loss. Ultimatelyafigure mustbechosenbestdesigned toyieldthe presentvalueof future loss.Therefore, thefigure chosen by reference to the factors above listed must be scaled down sufficiently to reflect the present value of future loss. 40 684 1 C.L.R. 5 10 S a w n v. Savvides & Another Kourris J Therefore, thefigure chosenby reference tothefactors above listed must be scaled down sufficiently to reflect the present value of future loss. Justice and fairness should guide the Court throughouttheprocess of assessment of damage. (See dicta of Geoffrey Lane, L.J. in Service Europe Atlantique v. Stockholmes [1978] 2 All E.R. 764). Ifthecases establish anyprincipleitisthis:Nohardand fast rules can|be established givingauniformanswer tothechoice ofthe multiplierinevery case (see Taylorv.Ο Connor [1971] 1All E.R.365 (H.L.); Gavin v. WilmotBreeden Ltd. [1973] 3 All E.R.935 (C.A.);Poullou v. Constantinou
(1973)1C.L.R. 177).» The trial Court awarded to the plaintiff the sum of £3,400 by way of general damages having taken into consideration the jtj consequences of her injuries, inconvenience and pain and the difficulties which she will meet in her job and in her every day household chores. But, the learned trial Judge did not give any particularsoranalysis of thesum andnotmuchhelphasbeen given to this Court as to the loss of earnings as from the period of the 20 accidenttillthedate of Judgmentandas towhat theloss of future earnings will be. Counsel for the appellant-plaintiff has submitted that the amount awarded by the trial Court was very low for pain and suffering, inconvenience and loss of future earnings. He further 25 argued thatthemultiplier for loss of future earnings inthepresent case would be 15years attherateof£150 - £200 peryear making the loss of future earnings about £3,000. Pausing here for a moment, we would like tostate thatat thetime of the hearing of the action,the plaintiff was 36 years old, and the multiplier of 15 30 years, as suggested by counsel for theappellant,is inouropinion very-^iigh." In considering whether the award of £3,400 is a wholly erroneous estimate,we went carefully throughthecase, including the medical evidence to the effect that the working capacity 35 of the plaintiff has been permanently diminished and we are of the view, that the sum of £3,400 was too low in the circumstances and a wholly erroneous estimate. We hold that a fair compensation would be thesum of £4,200, having regard to theamountswhich arebeing awarded as general damages by trial 40 Courts and which are either affirmed or varied by this Court on 685 KourrisJ. S a w a v. S a w l d e s & Another
(1988)appeal. Allowance is made for the fact that compensation is paid at oncein a lump sum. Turningnow tothequestion of special damages, counselforthe appellantcomplained thattheaward of thetrialJudge for £250 for household services was too low. 5 It appears from the evidence that the plaintiff remained in hospital for 3 monthsand it isobvious that the plaintiff could not do the household chores upon her discharge from the hospital. There is in evidence that the plaintiff paid £4 per day for the household chores whilst in hospital and for a period after her 10 discharge from the hospital. The employment by the plaintiff of another person to do the household work was justified because she had four minor children,the eldest being atthetimeof theaccident5years old. In the circumstances, we think thatthe amountof £250 awarded by 15 the trialJudge is too low and we raise itto £500. Another pointwhich counsel for theappellant-plaintiff attacked was the award of £300 for lossof earnings whilst the plaintiff was in hospital.ThetrialJudge said thattheplaintiff failed toprove her income from her work and he awarded her £300 for loss of 20 earnings for the period the plaintiff was in hospital including a period after her discharge from the hospital. We do notthinkthat the trial Judge could do better in the circumstances, bearing in mindtheevidence before him,andwe are notprepared to disturb his finding on thispoint. ι 25 For all these reasons, the appeal succeeds and the amount of theJudgment isvaried accordingly from £4,175 to£5,225 as from the date of the original judgment with costs for the appellant against the respondents. Appeal allowed as above, judgment varied accordingly and 30 order for costs as above. Appeal allowed. 686