Naqeletia v Kumar [2012] FJHC 29; HBC19.2010 (20 January 2012)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI AT LABASA
CIVIL JURISDICTION

CASE NUMBER: HBC 19 OF 2010

BETWEEN:

ETA NAQELETIA
Plaintiff

AND:

RAM KUMAR
Defendant

Appearances: Mr. Amrit Sen for the Plaintiff.
Ms. A. Neelta for the Defendant.

Date/Place of Judgment: Friday, 20th January, 2012 at Labasa.

Coram: The Hon. Justice Anjala Wati.

JUDGMENT

CATCHWORDS:

Personal Injury- Liability admitted – assessment of damages.

The Cause

1. This cause requires the Court to assess damages for the plaintiff for the personal injuries she suffered from a motor vehicle accident. The defendant admitted liability and preferred that the issue of damages be assessed by the Court.
   

The Evidence

2. I will summarize the necessary evidence of all the witnesses for the purpose of assessment of damages only.
   
3. The plaintiff testified that prior to the accident she did not have any injuries. After her accident, she received injuries to her hand. She lost 3 top teeth and 1 bottom tooth. She also received injuries on her chin. The Court asked her to show her injuries and upon sighting the injuries, it was apparent that her right hand is swollen and crooked. The right hand bears conspicuous stitches. The scars are also noticeable from a distance.
   
4. The plaintiff stated that after the accident she was unconscious and only regained consciousness after midday. She suffered a lot of pain. Her whole body ached. She was frightened and felt uneasy. Her feet were weak and she could not get up. Her thighs were weak and painful although she dot have any injuries on the thighs. Her back ached. Her movements were limited and slow. She could not stand up and go to the bathroom. There was plaster in both her hands. Her hands were very painful. She had excruciating pain. Pain was more severe than labour pains. Her left hand ached more than the right. Her mouth was swollen and she was not able to open the same and speak. Now her lips and jaws do not fit in the same place. Her facial looks are changed. She could not sleep well and this continued the next day. Her jaws were painful.
   
5. On the first night of the accident the plaintiff said that her daughter bathed her and changed her clothes. The daughter helped her to go to the washroom as she could not clean herself as well. She could not freshen herself or do her hair or even scratch herself. Her daughter stayed with her the night of the accident and one another lady came the next day. Another person looked after her at night. They would help her by cleaning her, brushing her combing her hair, taking her to the washroom and bathroom. During the two weeks in the hospital, her daughter and friend would be in the hospital and assist her because she could not do anything on her own.
   
6. Her sleeps would be disrupted by the pain. She stayed in the hospital for two weeks. The doctors would take her to the theatre and clean her wound. She said she was taken to the theatre more than two times and she was under anesthetic. When she gained consciousness, she felt the pain again.
   
7. The pain continued the next day and for the two weeks. For the entire two weeks she was on drugs. She had pains. She was very frightened, felt weak and worried.
   
8. When she was discharged after two weeks, her both hands were still in plaster. She still had pain and her mobility limited. She was helped by her village ladies. Her daughters also gave her constant care. Her daughter is married and was not living with her. She used to come from her home and stay with her and go back on Fridays. In the weekends, the husband cared for her. At home the pain would disturb her sleep and she would ask the daughter to massage her. This continued for about six months. When the plaster was removed, she still could not do any work. She is right handed. After 6 months, she could move her right hand but she still needed assistance. She then had to practice eating with her left hand and it took her a long time to get used to eating with her right hand.
   
9. After 6 months, when the daughter went away, her husband and son helped her. Son is now married, at the time he was not.
   
10. With her right hand, she still could not do anything. She had to use her left hand to support her right hand. If she has to do anything with her left hand, she has to support her right hand by resting the same on her breasts. Until now she cannot do the things she did before the accident like preparing breakfast, cleaning the house, cooking, washing, gardening, mending about 3 to 4 pigs, pulling and cleaning cassava, fishing.
    
11. She used to go fishing about 3 times a week. She used to sell her catch being crabs and fish. She said she would sell for about $30.00 a day. After accident, she never went fishing. Sometimes she would not go fishing and on an average she would get $50.00 a week. Her son and husband still help her. She needs a care giver.
    
12. She would pay her daughter and one Filomena who helped her in the hospital.
    
13. She returned to her normal diet after some time. She can now chew food because the teeth has been temporarily fixed. She needs a crown and bridge and the doctor has quoted her $2,500.
    
14. She still has pain in her right arm and shoulder and in cold weather it still pains. If she uses her left hand for a long time, that pains as well. She then has to stop work. She can however use her left hand to the extent of 1/3rd when compared from before. She can brush with her left hand. It is easier now after training.
    
15. Her social life has changed as well. She used to do cooking and delivering to church. She cannot do that anymore. For her pain, she buys medication like panadol. Panadol would cost her about $20.00 per month.
    
16. After discharge, she would go back to the hospital and the taxi fare would be $12.00 per day.
    
17. On the aspect of having another reconstructive surgery, she said that she does not know whether that could be corrected. She said that no one told her about the pain she has to undergo.
    
18. Under cross examination, the plaintiff stated that her 16 years son stays home with her now as the elder one is married. She attended the clinics about 4 or 5 times. If it can be guaranteed that her hand be fixed, then she will go for the reconstructive surgery. She did not promise any one to give money but she will pay them. In other respects, she basically confirmed what she said in her evidence in chief. She would sell her crab at $50.00 a week and fish at $50.00 a week as well.
    
19. One Ms. Filomena also testified on behalf of the plaintiff. She testified that she knows the plaintiff for 8 years. She said that when she went to the hospital to see the plaintiff, her eyes were closed and swollen. Her nose and mouth was covered with blood. Both the hands were fractured. She could see the right hand bone protruding and that the right hand was shorter. Next day she came at 7 o'clock to stay with the plaintiff at the hospital. The plaintiff did not speak and acknowledged her by a nod. She went back at 5.30pm the same day. She had spent the entire day with her. She stayed in the hospital for two weeks. The plaintiff did not move or speak for 3 days. She helped her clean, comb her hair and fed her for two weeks. The plaintiff had tubes attached and so she cleaned her. The plaintiff was in severe pain. She would sleep and her sleep would be disrupted. The plaintiff was also frightened.
    
20. Under cross examination, Ms. Filomena said that she used to go to the hospital at her own expenses. She used both the bus and the taxi as the transport. The bus fare was $1.50 for one way. She travelled in taxi for about 5 times at $7.00 per each time.
    
21. The plaintiff's daughter Ms. Ana also gave evidence for the plaintiff. She testified that she went to the hospital when her mother met an accident. On the day of the accident she noticed the injuries her mother suffered. Mother had disrupted sleeps. Her eyes and mouth were swollen. Blood was also coming out. She was not mobile and was in severe pain. She would stay with the mother at nights. During day time, one Filomena would stay with her. Mother could not do anything and she helped her. For whole two weeks she was in severe pain at the hospital. After discharge, she stayed with her mother for 6 months. She would go back every Friday for the weekends. The pain was severe and she used to massage her. She expects to be paid for her services. She expects about $160-$200 a week.
    
22. The plaintiff's husband also gave evidence. He stated that the wife was immobile after the accident. He noticed that her hand was broken and skin severed. He could see the bones underneath the skin. Sometimes he saw his wife at the hospital as he was working. From work, he would go and see her. Prior to the accident, his wife used to do all housework, farm work, fishing, planting and gardening. After the accident, she could not do anything for herself even. His daughter looked after his wife for 6 months during the week and weekends, he would look after her. She now needs constant care as she cannot do her personal chores. Care giver would cost about $80-$90 a week.
    
23. The plaintiff called another witness being a dentist, Mr. Prem Chand. He stated that he has made a partial temporary denture for the plaintiff which cost her $340.00. He said that when teeth break, the pain is unbearable. The pain cannot be measured. That is why local anesthesia is given when removing a tooth. Partial denture can fall and break and so he can make a fixed crown and denture which will be fixed on teeth permanently. It will cost her $2,500.
    
24. Under cross examination, the dentist stated that he put in the gold filling because the plaintiff opted for the same. He said that if gold filling was not there, the price would be $100 less.
    
25. The plaintiff produced another witness, Dr. Alipate who testified that he had access to the plaintiff's file. She was first admitted on 30th August, 2009 after she was involved in a car accident. She sustained injuries to her left and right arm and minor injuries to her face. The injury was open fracture with multiple lacerations on rights forearm, open fracture of right radius arm. The bones were protruding outside. X-ray reports shows comminuted fracture. Comminuted fracture is when bone breaks into more than 2 pieces. On the left arm there was closed digital left radius fracture. Closed fracture means muscles and skins are intact. Open fracture means that wound outside communicates the fracture.
    
26. The doctor stated that after the plaintiff was admitted, she was put on antibiotics. She was taken to the theatre and her wound was washed. She went to the theatre at 2pm and was in the theatre for about an hour. It would be correct if she says that she came out of the theatre at 4pm. She was discharged on 12th September, 2009. She was administered with treatment for 14 days. She had repeat wound washes in the theatre for 6 times. She was also on antibiotics through intravenous. She was mobile on the 2nd day. There was no documentation on blood transfusion. She had back slabs on both her arms and depending on the size of the backslab, she could only use her fingers.
    
27. The doctor said that in terms of communited fracture, the return of function depends on many factors like the extent of the injuries, the use of the hands. If the hands are in cast, the rule is to get early mobility. The patient's folder shows extensive injury. There are however no specific injuries recorded of tissues and veins. The right forearm is deformed with a laceration near the disc down to the elbow of 10x 10cm in the interior aspect of the forearm. The doctor said that the deformation happened due to the accident. There are records of the plaintiff's coping. There are however mentions of patient complaining of pain. He cannot say about the degree of pain. The folders stated that she attended 3 clinics after discharge and that her wound was healing well and sutures removed. The face and lips were also sutured. It is possible that she attended more clinics but the same is not recorded in the folder. The doctor said that one Dr. A. Choudhari had prepared the report and kept it in the folder. The report was tendered in as exhibit. The report did not have any mention of the fracture healing. The doctor said that he had no opportunity of seeing recent X-rays or conducting examination. He has also seen Dr. Emosi Talonga's report. According to his report the fracture was nonunion which means that the fracture was not healed. If there is a shortening of arms then it means that the bones are not fit well, they are either aligned or overlapping. The report does not mention of any bones being removed. If there is shortening of hands, one cannot comment that it could be corrected by reconstructive surgery. Patients' version can be different from medical opinion on the aspect of mobility.
    
28. Dr. Abhay Choudari's report was in the following terms:-
    

"This patient was admitted at Labasa Hospital on 30/08/09 after sustaining injuries in a motor vehicular accident. She was hit by a moving twincab while crossing road.

On admission she was in a stable condition. She had the following external injuries:

1. Laceration upper lip and chin
2. Loose upper incision on the right side.
3. Open fracture right radius and ulna, laceration over right forearm (measuring 15cm x 7mm x muscle deep and 10cm x 5cmx muscle deep)
4. Closed fracture left radius.
   

The blood investigation were normal limits. The X-ray findings were as follows:

1. X-ray Skull – AP – Normal
2. X-ray right forearm – fracture radius & ulna
3. X-ray left forearm – fracture left radius
4. X-ray cervical spine – normal.
   

She was treated with antibiotics, analgesics, wound wash and back slab.

She was discharged on 12/9/09 with arrangements made for review in the surgical clinic".

29. Under cross examination the doctor stated that patient was under oral and IV antibiotics until 17th September, 2009. On the day of the accident, the wound swabs were sent to lab for test, full POP was applied, saline wash conducted, manipulation of bones in left arm done under general anesthesia, there being no mention of right arm. No surgery could be conducted before wound was washed. None was recommended. There was no other treatment given to her right arm. Patient complained of pain on 30th August, 2009. There are no other records of complains made. She was given pain relief on 30th August and on other different occasions from time to time. The clinic of 17 December, 2009 stated that wound was healed. She attended two prior clinics on 30th September, 2009 and 29th October, 2009. No other clinics were recommended. If she attended other clinics it would be recorded in other folders. When patient returns to normality after anesthesia, the pain would be there. Manipulation of left arm was done because the bone was not in right position.
    
30. The defendant's first witness was Dr. Talonga, an Orthopedic Surgeon. He testified that he received a request from Sun insurance after which he examined the plaintiff and prepared a report dated the 26th October, 2010. He tendered his report. He prepared his report after examining the plaintiff. He examined her hand, her general demeanour and also extracted an X-Ray. He stated that in a malunited fracture, manipulation of bones can still finally result in the bones going out of place. A malunion surgery can improve the function of her hand. Her permanent disability can be improved with constructive surgery. It is not too late to undergo the reconstructive surgery. The patient was told about this and she is still thinking of the prospects. The risk would involve infection and the risk is less than 1%. 1 out of 100 patients can die if nerve paralyses or if limb is shortened. He has conducted surgery of this nature and the risk is not present in this type of a case. The X-Ray report shows shortening of 3cm and the risk is very small.
    
31. Dr. Talonga's report was in the following terms:-
    

"Mrs. Naqelita was examined by me today for the purpose of this medical report. She was injured in a pedestrian-automobile accident when she was bumped from the side by a twin –cab while she was on a zebra crossing.

She had sustained an open fracture of the right radius ulna and a closed fracture of the distal radius. She also had a few broken teeth from the injury.

Mrs. Naqelita is a right-handed housewife. She tells that she was not able to do most of the normal housework because of the weakness over her dominant right hand and occasionally has pain over the left wrist.

Examination showed a T-shaped scar over the proximal right forearm with both the limbs measuring 10 cm length and 10 cm in width. The scar appears hypertrophic (which was explained orally to mean slightly raised above the skin). The proximal forearm (orally explained to mean right arm) appears deformed and mobile. Sensation to the hand was normal.

The right wrist is radially deviated (orally explained to mean deviated outside) with prominence of the ulna styloid.

Left Wrist ROM Measurement:

• Extension - 50 Degrees
• Flexion - 50 Degrees
• Radial Deviation - 30 Degrees
• Ulna Deviation - 20 Degrees
  

(It was orally explained that in a normal patient the ROM Measurement should be 80 degrees for normal and flexion, 30 degrees for radial deviation and 20 degrees for ulna deviation).

The X-ray of the right forearm showed non-union of the fractured proximal right radius and ulna.

The left distal radius showed a united intra-articular (the term intra-articular orally explained to mean fracture involving joint surface around the wrist) fracture with shortening and loss of the inclination angle.

Mrs. Naqelita's fractured right forearm has not united (non-union) with a malunited fracture of the distal radius. These injuries are inconsistent with the history. There were no pre-existing injuries or condition which contributed to her injuries.

Mrs. Naqelita's dominant right hand is weak due to loss of the structural support of both (radius and ulna) bones. The left radius fracture has united in a non-anatomical position. This bone is important for the integrity of the wrist. The malunion will be a source of chronic wrist pain and secondary osteoarthritis.

Calculation of Permanent Disability:

Distal left radius fracture with restricted motion (left)	- 8% U.E (U.E was
explained to mean upper expanding)
Non-union of left radius & ulna fracture	- 25% U.E

COMBINED VALUE - 31%

This is equivalent to 19% of the whole person. Therefore, permanent disability is rated at 19%.

The resultant condition of the right forearm and wrist could be improved with treatment. This would require reconstructive surgery and I would recommend the treatment for the dominant right forearm.

Mrs. Naqelita could only return to her normal duty if the non-union of the right forearm is treated appropriately.

The injuries are consistent with the history. She has been left with permanent disabilities because the treatments of her injuries were not completed or she has decided not to have further intervention done."

32. Under cross-examination, Dr. Talonga stated that before examining the patient, he had the advantage of seeing the patient's folder from Labasa Hospital. He did not have an X-Ray from the Labasa Hospital. A doctor treating a patient with communited fracture has to look at the nerve, tissue damage, veins, and arteries and ascertain the injuries to it and he did not have the report on the extent of the injuries. It is not necessary that for reconstructive surgery, the first X-Ray report be seen. For the right arm, there was a non union which means bones were not in right places. Bones grow from all sides. There was a 3cm overlap but in this case ends are not growing. In a reconstructive surgery, the tissue would be lifted and bones would be put to the correct place. One can only see it when the patient is cut open. It appears in finding that right arm has no structural support. He agrees with earlier findings of the doctors. In the condition the patient is in, she cannot use her right arm. Her arms, both, are shortened. In right arms, due to bones overlapping and angulation. Left arm also shortened. He did not have a grip strength machine. Even if there is no grip, the hand can still be of some use. The patient can have arthritis. She might have pain in day to day work. There is a possibility of improvement in reconstructive surgery. One cannot say with conviction on the degree of improvement. There is very very small risk of the surgery. There is also muscle wasting in the plaintiff's hand but that is not a major risk of surgery. He has only considered reconstructive surgery on the dominant right hand not on the left hand. In a reconstructive surgery, the patient will go through post operative pain after the effect of anesthesia is gone and the pain would be same as fresh injury. There is no guarantee that the bones will heal. From the X-Ray, he can tell that reconstructive surgery is the answer. The patient can use left arm depending on the degree of her comfort. The patient will have to take anti-inflammatory medicine. All tablets have side effect.
    
33. The defendant's 2nd witness was one Arendra Kumar. He stated that he has obtained quotation for reconstructive surgery which report was tendered. The report states that the estimate of the costs was around $12,052.75 to $13,202.75. The report stated that the cost comprised of the all hospital fees, diagnostic treatment, pharmacy charges and surgeon and anesthetist fees for treatment and accommodation in Suva Private Hospital. The cost was only an estimate and not a quotation. Under cross examination, the witness stated that airfare costs and the care-givers costs were not included. Post surgery costs were also not included but the insurance company would pay for the same.
    

The Submissions

34. I thank both the counsels in their efforts for their written submissions. I have considered both the submissions.
    

The Law and Analysis

35. The plaintiffs claim is limited to special damages, general damages, punitive and exemplary damages.
    
36. The injuries that the plaintiff sustained as ascertained by the doctors is not disputed. Dr. Talonga has assessed the permanent disability at 19%. In absence of any contrary assessment I am bound o accept the injuries as shown in the medical reports and the permanent assessment at 19%.
    
37. I will look at the issue of special damages first. Special damages are for part of the claim that is capable of precise calculation. Therefore under this head the appropriate claim would be:-
    
    • (a) Plaintiffs hospital fares;
    • (b) Plaintiffs medication;
    • (c) Plaintiffs 2 caregivers' costs for two weeks initially and then for 1 caregiver's cost for 6 month.
    • (d) 2 caregivers travel to and from the hospital.
      
38. The first part of special damages is the plaintiff's fares. The established fact is that the plaintiff was transported to hospital when she got knocked down. From town to hospital this would cost approximately $2.50. She then went back home after discharge and the taxi fare would cost her $6.00 per day. She then indisputably attended 3 initial clinics and another clinic after 6 months for the removed of the plaster. At the rate of $12.00 a day she is entitled to $48.00 for the 4 clinics. The total for the plaintiff's hospital fares therefore amounts to $56.50. I allow this sum in full.
    
39. The second part is the plaintiff's medication. Although this is not proved, I accept that over a period of time, the plaintiff has spent money to buy her medication like panadol and in absence of any proof I only allocate a minimum sum of $100.00 for the past 2 ½ years.
    
40. I also allow a sum of $340.00 which she has spent on the dentist. Ms. Neelta states that the plaintiff should not have had the gold filling. It is strange that such a suggestion is made. The plaintiff is suffering mentally because of her cosmetic looks and if she spent a little money to improve her looks, she has committed no offence and she is well entitled to be compensated for her expenditure.
    
41. The next aspect is the cost for the caregivers. The evidence is that initially for two weeks one Filomena used to assist the plaintiff during day time from 31/08/2009 to 12/09/2009. This being the second day from the date of the admission till the date of the discharge. The plaintiff's daughter stayed whole day and night on 30/08/2009 and thereafter every night's until 12/09/2009.
    
42. Although there was no agreement to pay any money but it is only proper that those who had cared the totally immobile plaintiff during these days be compensated. The plaintiff cannot have the burden on her shoulders of not paying someone when she can when she is given the compensation.
    
43. There is no evidence what the payment was agreed to be and in absence of any such agreement I allocate a sum of $10.00 per day x 12 days for Filomena which amounts to $120.00 and for the daughter I allocate $10 x 13 nights which amount to $130.00.
    
44. There is also evidence that the daughter helped the mother for the six months. No specific date has been given as to when she went away and so I allocate $10.00 per day for 6 months which calculates to $10 x 180 days which amounts to $1,800.
    
45. After the 6 months the husband and the son helped the plaintiff with the household chores. They are part of the family and it was their work they did, like cooking, cleaning and washing. They also did this when and as they were available as the son was schooling and the husband was employed full time. I will not allocate any cost for the members of the family who did work to run their household. It would be unfair in the circumstances to pay people to do their own household chores. However I will consider the aspect of future nursing care at the appropriate stage.
    
46. The last aspect in special damages is the cost for Ms. Filomena to travel to and from the hospital to take care of the plaintiff. Filomena would have in the 12 days used the transport 24 times. She said that she used taxi for 5 times at $7.00. One way bus fare was $1.50. The transport cost for Filomena comes to $63.50.
    
47. The daughter also travelled to and from the hospital and did not submit any evidence of her expenses for transport. In absence of that I only allocate a minimum sum of $50.00 because the evidence is there that she did travel to the hospital.
    
48. The total of special damages calculates to $2, 660.
    
49. Now in the category of general damages I will consider the following subheads:-
    
    • (a) Pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life;
    • (b) Loss of past and future earning;
    • (c) Future nursing care and;
    • (d) Future medical treatment.
      
50. The plaintiff's pain and suffering was not disputed. I accept that she has gone through excruciating pain with a permanent disability of 19%. I also accept that she will suffer pain in future and pain if she even opts to have reconstructive surgery. She also is now not in a position to participate in her social life. Further, her suffering is mental as well seeing that from a cosmetic point of view, her hand and face is not what she desired. The plaintiff's suffering was apparent from her demeanour. She hid her sorrows but I could see that as a woman she also desires to look proper and dress proper but unfortunately she cannot enjoy all this. She now has to wear loose clothes to be able to wear in and out of it easily. Her right hand is totally unfit and not working although it exists and is more burdensome to the plaintiff as she has to support the same all the time. Bearing in mind, the facts of this case and bearing in mind the awards in other cases of similar nature, I award a sum of $70,000 for past and future pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life.
    
51. The Plaintiff also testified that she was making an average of about $50.00 per week by sale of fish and crab. Her evidence in this aspect was inconsistent but undoubtedly as a village woman, she sold fish and crabs for her income. She was 46 years at the date of the accident and she would have worked beyond the normal retirement age. She did not have to retire at the age of 55. In order to allocate the loss of past and future earnings, I have to work out the multiplier and I also consider the contingencies and vicissitudes of life. I hence adopt a multiplier of 8 in the circumstances. The loss of past and future earnings is therefore in the sum of $50 x 52 x 8 = $20,800.
    
52. It is established that the plaintiff's right hand is not working and that after she has trained, she manages to do some of her personal work but I accept her evidence that she still needs assistance in many areas like cooking, cleaning, washing, gardening and many more. She cannot always depend on her family to do all these things because the husband is a full time worker and he needs time for himself after a full days' work. It would be fair if she is provided a domestic hand for at least 5 working days. I allocate a sum of $50.00 for a week for future medical care. She is therefore entitled to future nursing care in the sum of $50 x 52 x 8 = $20,800.
    
53. The plaintiff has suffered enough and she is worried about the chances of success of a reconstructive surgery. The pain she has to go through is the fresh pain and she has the right to decide whether she wishes to be medically invaded. With what she has gone through, her having second thoughts about the surgery is definitely proper. However, I accept Dr. Talonga's evidence that if she went through the surgery, there are good chances that she would recover and have her hand normalized. The cost is estimated at $13,202.75. This may increase depending on the time the plaintiff takes to recover. If any money under this head is to be awarded to the plaintiff, her allocation for future nursing care has to be taken away as there is only 1 % risk in this reconstructive surgery. Since the plaintiff has a choice to be free from medical invasion I have allocated her a sum for future nursing care. I therefore do not make any allocation under this head which if awarded would result in double awards.
    
54. However the plaintiff is entitled to a sum of $2,500 for future dental costs in the sum of $2,500.
    
55. There is no question of punitive or exemplary damages as this case is not meant to punish the defendant but to compensate the plaintiff. I do not find any evidence of any outrageous or contumelious conduct of the defendant. I refuse an award under this head.
    
56. Interest is only appropriate on the award of special damages at the rate of 3% from the date of accident until the date of trial and on the aspect of pain and suffering at the rate of 6 %. No interest should be awarded for future medical care and future earning as the plaintiff would have only received the money in future and paying interest on future earning and future medical care is not justified as the plaintiff has not been kept out of pocket in these regard.
    
57. Interest on special damages is calculated as follows:-
    

30.08.2009 to 30.08. 2010	- 0.03 x $2,660 x 1 year	= $79.80
31.08.2010 to 30. 04.2011	– 8 months x $6.65	= $53.20
1.05.2011 to 11.05.2011	– 11 days x $0.22	= $2. 42
TOTAL		$135.42

58. Interest on general damages is calculated as follows:-
    

30.08.2009 to 30.08. 2010	– 0.06 x $70,000 x 1 year	= $4, 200
31.08.2010 to 30. 04.2011	– 8 months x $350	= $2, 800
1.05.2011 to 11.05.2011	– 11 days x $11.50	= $126.50
TOTAL		$7,126.50.

Costs

59. The plaintiff is entitled to costs. The trial was shortened due to the aspect of admission of liability. The defendant also attempted to settle the matter but unfortunately they could not. The defendants conduct in admitting liability should result in discount in the costs that I would have otherwise ordered against him. In summarily assessing the cost, I allocate a sum of $2,000 to the plaintiff.
    

Final Orders

60. I enter judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $124,021.92 inclusive of interests and made up as follows:
    

Special damages with Interest	- $2, 795.42
General damages	- $114, 100
Interest on part of general damages	- $7, 126.50
TOTAL	- $124,021.92

61. The plaintiff is entitled to post judgment interest at the rate of 4% on the above sum from the date of the judgment until the date of payment.
    
62. I award costs to the plaintiff in the sum of $2,000.
    
63. The parties are at general liberty to apply to correct calculation errors if any.
    
64. Orders accordingly.
    

Anjala Wati
Judge
20.01.2012

To:

1. Mr. A. Sen, counsel for the plaintiff.
2. Mr. G. O'Driscoll, counsel for the defendant.
3. File: HBC 19 of 2010.