Frank Daniel Appellant v Godfrey Paul Joseph Emmanuel Respondent [ECSC]

• Jurisdiction: St Lucia
• Judge: ST. BERNARD J.A.,CHIEF JUSTICE
• Judgment Date: 23 May 1977
• Judgment citation (vLex): [1977] ECSC J0523-1
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saint Lucia)
• Docket Number: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2 OF 1977
• Date: 23 May 1977

[1977] ECSC J0523-1

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

Before:

TheHonourable Sir Maurice Davis, Q.C. Chief Justice

The Honourable Mr. Justice St. Bernard

The Honourable Mr. Justice Peterkin

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2 OF 1977

Between:

Frank Daniel

Appellant

and

Godfrey Paul

Joseph Emmanuel

Respondent

Appearances:

Kenneth Monplaisir for Appellant

Primrose Bledman for Respondents

ST. BERNARD J.A.

1 The appellant was seriously injured in a motor accident which took place along the Castries/Dennery Road on the 11th November, 1974. He was awarded the sum of $7,500 damages against the respondents who admitted liability. The appellant contends that the damages awarded were inordinately low having regard to the nature and extent of the injuries suffered and also that the judge was erroneous in law when he failed to consider the probability of the risk of loss of the earning capacity before the estimated end of the appellant's working life and the effect of the injury on the chances of his obtaining further employment.

2 The appellant who was 49 years of age at the time of the accident and who was employed by the Land and Surveys Department as a driver of a Land Rover earned between $80 and $130 per fortnight depending upon the amount of overtime earned. According to the surgeon specialist who attended him the appellant suffered severe injuries to the right arm and hand which resulted in gross deformity and curvature of the right limb; reduction of pronation and super action, reduction of flexion in thelittle finger and the ring, middle and index fingers, and reduction of apposition of the right thumb. He stated that he still had pain on movement of the arm which would continue for the rest of his life and that it would get worse. He gave a reasonable estimate of the loss of use of the arm as 75%.

3 The appellant himself testified that although he was still employed as a driver he could not use his right hand and had to drive with his left hand but could not grip the steering as he wanted with that hand. He could not drive on roughtroads and could only place the palm of the right hand on the steering wheel. At any time when his duties require driving on rough roads he could not perform them. He was not in a pensionable post. There was no evidence for the defence which accepted the medical report.

4 The trial judge accepted the fact that the appellant suffered severe injuries but stated that in his view the appellant was...