PNG Law Reports 1994
[1994] PNGLR 467
N1257
PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]
JENNIFER ELDIK
V
MOTOR VEHICLES INSURANCE (PNG) TRUST
Mount Hagen
Woods J
17 August 1994
5 September 1994
DAMAGES - Personal injuries - Motor vehicle accident - Single woman - School teacher - Post concussion syndrome - Partial disability in hand - Assessment.
Facts
The plaintiff claimed damages for injuries she received in a motor vehicle accident when she was travelling as a passenger in a PMV in the Madang Province. The accident was due to the negligence of the driver. Liability was agreed upon by the parties. This judgment is reported on the issue of the assessment of general damages.
Cases Cited
Endeken v PNG [1988] PNGLR 286
Counsel
P Kopunye for the plaintiff.
P Smith for the defendant.
5 September 1994
WOODS J:  The plaintiff states in evidence that when the vehicle overturned she sustained severe injuries on her head and lacerations on her face and legs. She said she received a crack on the left side of her skull which caused damage to the left side of the brain, and this had the effect of paralysing her right hand. She refers to further problems caused by the crack in the skull, namely, a permanent hole in the skull which has caused continuing problems. As well, she has found herself suffering headaches when she travels and when she reads a lot. 
Immediately after the accident, she says, she was admitted to Madang Hospital for three weeks. After that, she received physiotherapy for the rest of the year. At the time, she was a teacher training student at the Madang Teachers College. After 1990, she came to the Highlands, her home place is Tambul in the Western Highlands, and for the past three years she has been as a community school teacher. She states that she went to Mount Hagen Hospital and Goroka Hospital for some treatment last year. This appears to have been for the pus material coming out of the hole in the skull.
She states that she has been able to work as a teacher, but she does have problems with writing. She was originally right handed and has had to master writing with her left hand, and she is not as proficient as she was with the right hand, having to concentrate on the writing of every letter rather than the natural flow. She is quite self conscious about the disability with her right hand. When demonstrating the use of the right hand, it was obvious that she had difficulty manipulating it. The plaintiff is aged about 21 years. When asked if she wished to get married, she said she would have really wanted to but, as she has the problem with her hand and head, she would be unable to do the normal work required from her as a housewife in the home and in a village environment. She stated that she has had requests for marriage but she has decided not to get married.
Evidence was given by a doctor who examined her over a year after the accident. From what he was told, he observed that she seemed to suffer from a left parietal depressed fracture which had caused some loss of consciousness. He noted, generally, that apart from the complaint about the hand and the headaches, she seemed to be a fit young woman, not in any distress. However, he did find that she suffered some impairment of the right arm from the brain damage. There were a number of discrepancies in his report which suggested that the assessment may not have been as careful as one would expect. There was a confusion over whether it was a post traumatic arthritis or, as he attempted to correct in evidence, a post concussion syndrome. He gave an assessment of 35 percent permanent disability as a result of the brain damage. However, it was a bit confusing as to what this was, a general disability to her whole self or only the percentage disability to the right hand. Because of the confusion in certain dates, the confusion in the final diagnosis, and the vagueness of the 35 percent permanent disability, the Court is unable to place much weight on the medical report evidence. So the Court is only left with the plaintiff's own evidence.
However, that still leaves it quite clear that there has been some impairment to the right hand as well as a problem with headaches, and some continuing problem with the healing of the crack in the skull.
In the case Endeken v PNG [1988] PNGLR 286, the Court was faced with a plaintiff who had similar injuries to the plaintiff here, namely, head injuries and unconsciousness which left her with a totally useless arm. However, when one looks at the details in the Endeken case, it is quite clear that her injuries were far more serious. The plaintiff there was a nurse who had to give up her vocation because of the injuries. In the case before me now, the Court has a woman who has made an effort to compensate for the injuries received and has entered her chosen career and been working in it since after the accident. It is quite clear that there is no psychiatric problem, only a physical problem.
In the Endeken case, the Court awarded general damages of K36,000 to the plaintiff, who was a very different person from what she was before the accident. There had been a complete personality change and she was left with a virtually useless arm. The plaintiff before the Court now is a person who is still working at her vocation, and has managed to cope very well, but who will nevertheless continue to suffer the effects of the injuries for the rest of her life. It is now six years on since the award in the more serious Endeken case. 
I will assess a figure of K28,000 for general damages for this plaintiff. I will allow interest on K10,000 of that amount at 8% from the date of the issue of the writ to today.
General damages	K28,000.00	
Interest on part	3,346.86	
 	K31,346.86	
Less 30% contributory	9,404.06	
 	K21,942.80	
I order judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of K21,942.80.
Lawyer for the plaintiff: P Kopunye.
Lawyer for the defendant: Young & Williams.