Sylvester Hubert Claimant v James Laurent also known as Dee Dee Defendant [ECSC]

• Jurisdiction: St Lucia
• Judge: Mason J
• Judgment Date: 27 April 2005
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2005] ECSC J0427-2
• Court: High Court (Saint Lucia)
• Date: 27 April 2005
• Docket Number: Claim No. SLUHCV 2005/0459

[2005] ECSC J0427-2

THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

Claim No. SLUHCV 2005/0459

Between:

Sylvester Hubert

Claimant

and

James Laurent also known as Dee Dee

Defendant

Appearances:

Mrs. Shirley Lewis, Attorney at law for Claimant

Defendant not present, unrepresented

DECISION

Mason J

1 This is an application for assessment of damages consequent upon the default judgment obtained by the Claimant on 2 ^nd November, 2005.

2 The uncontroverted facts are as stated in the legal submissions of Counsel for the Claimant:

a. The Claimant was a mechanic and refrigeration technician and lived with his common-law wife at Savannes Bay, La Toc, Castries at the date of the incident on June 24 ^th 2002, he was visiting his child's mother and they were watching television when the Defendant, who also resided in the same house entered the room with a cup in his hand and proceeded to throw the liquid contents in the Claimant's face including his eyes. The liquid burned the Claimants eyes very badly and he was taken to Victoria Hospital where he continued to suffer extreme pain.

b. The Claimant remained in the hospital for two (2) weeks and was discharged with medication. After leaving the hospital he continued to receive treatment by local and visiting doctors from Martinique and recently from Cuba: but the Claimant's condition did not improve and the Claimant is fully blind, with no hope of any improvement or of ever seeing again.

c. The Claimant had two other children who lived with him and his common-law wife in a two bedroom wooden house at Savannes Bay, Castries they were ages 13 and 14 then, and both attending Secondary School. The common law wife worked as a ward maid at the Victoria Hospital and the Claimant as a Refrigeration Technician at the Fisheries Complex, Castries where he maintained the deep freezers in Saint Lucia for the Fisheries Complex.

d. For this job he earned $1,352.32 per month. He also had a hobby repairing motor vehicles as a motor mechanic repairman which earned his extra.

e. The Claimant liked diving as a hobby. He drove his children to school and he drove himself to work in Vieux Fort, Dennery, Castries and Anse La Raye the locations where the Fisheries Department had Deep Freezers.

f. The Claimant maintained his home and his family in the sum of $500.00 monthly. After the accident he ceased working. His common-law wife did everything for him and she solely supported the home and she continued to do so until March 2006.

g. The Claimant's house is on a rugged hill at Savannes, Castries and he cannot move or go anywhere outside his home without the help of someone, for fear of falling

h. He has had to pay a taxi often to take him back and forth to the Victoria Hospital and elsewhere for treatment and to go about his business. Recently his common-law wife left him and he has had to pay daily help of $30.00 off and on when he can afford it.

i. The Claimant's children have grown up and moved away from home and he has a grandchild whom he has never seen and never will be able to see

j. The Claimant is now dependant on friends to take him for drives or in town to do his business and to get out of his house whenever he wishes.

k. Immediately below the Claimant's house is a football field and his past time was to watch the young footballers from the area play the game. This is no longer possible neither can he meet his friends at the mechanic shop to "lime" or enjoy his hobby.

3 It is left to the Court to make the award of damages. To do this, the multiplier and multiplicand must first be determined. In so doing I am mindful of and are guided by the decision of the Court of Appeal Fenton Auguste and Francis Neptune Civil Appeal No.6 of 2996.

"In determining the multiplier, a court should be mindful that it is assessing general and not special damages. That is evaluating prospects, and then it is a once and for all and final assessment. It must take into account the many contingencies, vicissitudes and imponderables of life. It must remember that the Plaintiff is getting a lump sum instead of several small sums spread over the years and that the award...