Abeton v Director of Lands [2001] KIHC 3; Civil Case 42 of 2000 (1 January 2001)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KIRIBATI
CIVIL JURISDICTION
HELD AT BETIO
REPUBLIC OF KIRIBATI

High Court Civil Case 42 of 2000

Between:

TANANA ABETON
Plaintiff

And:

THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS
(AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE
ESTATE OF IAONIBEIA TAETOKA)
Defendant

For the Plaintiff: Ms Emma Hibling
For the Defendant: Ms Pole Tebao

JUDGMENT

On 11 October 1998 Tetiria Abeton was killed in a motor vehicle accident on Kiritimati Island. Liability for her death has been admitted by the Defendant, the administrator of the estate of the deceased driver of the vehicle in which Tetiria was a passenger.

Tetiria was 17 when she died: her date of birth 21 November 1979. She was unmarried. She lived with her parents and brothers and sisters. There were 10 children in the family. She was the mother of an 11 month old daughter Tiraro, now known as Tetiria Abeton.

This action is brought by her mother Tanana Abeton, on her own behalf and on behalf of the little daughter Tetiria, the sole beneficiary of her mother’s estate.

The claim falls into 3 parts, for –

Funeral expenses

Damages for loss of expectation of life

Dependency, the dependants being the mother and infant daughter

Tanana Abeton was the only witness. She said that her daughter Tetiria was the sixth of her ten children. She reached Class 9 at school. Although the Particulars supplied with the Statement of Claim acknowledged that Tetiria was not in employment, the plaintiff said Tetiria had been working in a shop: her wage was basic $70 which with overtime could be $80 to $90 per fortnight. Of this Tetiria gave her mother all but $20 which she spent on herself. Sometimes Tanana’s other children gave the plaintiff money too.

Within days of her death Tetiria was due to come to Tarawa to go to the Tarawa Technical Institute to extend her education by improving her English and her skills in dealing with money. Thereafter she would have returned to Kiritimati. There are plenty of jobs there and Tetiria hoped to work again in a shop and earn $90 or more per fortnight. The plaintiff said Tetiria was the most capable of her children but also the wild one. Her general health was good. She had been helping with domestic duties both before and after work. The plaintiff had been looking after the little girl and has continued to do so.

As to the funeral expenses, Ms Hibling, for the plaintiff, in opening, mentioned “about $1,000” but in evidence the plaintiff put the expenses at “nearly $2,000” for food at feasts in connection with the death and $90 for the coffin. She could produce nothing to support the claim. I think $2,000 is high, too high. I shall allow $1,250 plus $90 the expenses for the coffin, $1,340 in all.

As to loss of expectation of life, I canvassed the proper amount to be awarded in a judgment I delivered last December – civil case 17/1995 Taan Anterea suing as Administrator of the estate of Meere Taan against Doctor Kabwea Tiban and Attorney General on behalf of the Ministry of Health and Family Planning (at page 12). I assessed damages at $2,000 for loss of expectation of life and have no reason to alter that assessment.

The really difficult assessment is for dependency. I have no more to go on than I have already written.

Ms Hibling helpfully referred me to 34 Halsbury (4th edition) paragraphs 93 et seq. The calculations which may be made in England (and, in my experience, in Australia) are most complicated. Here in Kiribati it is not possible to make them: the means of doing so are not available. I have to make the assessment on the most scanty, imprecise information. The assessment cannot be much more than a guess.

I think it likely that a young woman such as Tetiria might work in paid employment at the most for another 10 years of her life, those 10 years being not necessarily continuous. She is likely to work for a few years before marriage and may be for a few afterwards. More likely is that she will marry and have children: even living in an extended family this is likely to mean she will not be able to work in paid employment. Say her earnings average $90 per fortnight: that is rather more than $2,000 a year. Total earnings over 10 years might be $20,000. Allowing for contingencies – early death, ill health, shorter working period, unable to find a job etc. – I assume total earnings of $10,000. Having reached this sum I cannot make any actuarial calculations using it.

Tetiria was one of a number of children likely to contribute money for the family. I don’t expect her contributions would continue after she married. I expect that would be within 3 years or so. I assume that in the meantime she would contribute an average of $60 per fortnight for the benefit of her mother and daughter (but really for the benefit of the whole family). That would be about $4,500 for the 3 years.

After marriage if her mother had a family Tetiria, the little girl, would be sharing with her step brothers and sisters the benefit of her mother’s earnings and could expect to be part of a family in which her step father was the main breadwinner. I shall not assess any separate amount for Tetiria’s benefit after her mother’s marriage.

I have reached a figure of $4,500. I have to apportion it between mother and daughter. I split it equally.

The plaintiff is entitled to $1,340 for funeral expenses and coffin and $2,250 for loss of dependency - $3,590.

Tetiria as beneficiary for the estate is entitled to $2,000 for her mother’s loss of expectation of life and $2,250 for loss of dependency - $4,250.

I shall hear counsel as to the orders I should make.

THE HON ROBIN MILLHOUSE QC
CHIEF JUSTICE