Mamando v Goiya [1992] PGNC 13; N1066 (1 June 1992)

Unreported National Court Decisions

N1066

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

W.S. 378 OF 1990
PEPA MAMANDO V KOI GOIYA

Mount Hagen

Woods J
2 March 1992
1 June 1992

DAMAGES - personal injuries - assault - end of nose bitten off - cosmetic and function disability - damages of K4,000.

CUSTOMARY DIVORCE - whether brideprice repayment to off set damages.

Counsel

D Poka for the Plaintiff

D L O'Connor for the Defendant.

1 June 1992

WOODS J: This is a claim for damages for personal injuries received when the defendant assaulted the plaintiff on 11th April, 1985. The plaintiff and defendant were married and had an argument and the defendant assaulted the plaintiff by amongst other things biting off the top of her nose. The defendant was convicted for the assault and served a term of imprisonment.

Liability is not denied and this has come before me as an assessment of the damages.

A medical report in 1986 stated that in the assault the front cartilaginous part of the nose was bitten off. An operation was performed in which a new nose was made for her from her forehead and the result was very good. However a medical report done in 1990 noted that the tissue was dropping and partly blocking the nose and further surgical procedures were necessary to correct this. The doctor noted that there was 50 percent disability in terms of cosmetic appearance and function.

There is no real precedents on such an injury. I have been referred to some Australian cases, one where an award of $8,000 was given for fractured nasal bones where there was still some obstruction and scarring. Two other cases involved rather severe facial injuries. So I am left to assess a figure for minor cosmetic disfigurement and some blocking of the nose. The plaintiff is now divorced from her husband and aged about 40 years. She feels shy about the disfigurement to her nose although really it is not too unsightly. I will assess an amount of K4,000 for damages.

It has been submitted that I should take into account that when it was agreed that the customary marriage was broken there was brideprice to be returned and that because of these injuries some of the brideprice has not been repaid.

It is submitted that the brideprice not repaid should be offset against any amount adjudged for the damages.

Whilst there has been some evidence of brideprice given there has been insufficient evidence as to what actually was decided when the marriage was dissolved and what was the custom relating to fault and consequential off-setting of brideprice against the fault. Also what happened to any children of the marriage. It is clear from the background to this claim that there was a history of assaults by the husband so that in itself would lessen any obligation to repay brideprice quite apart from any specific assessment for any particular injury occasioned during any assault.

Therefore in the circumstances I am unable to find that any award of damages should be offset by the failure to repay brideprice.

I therefore order damages of K4,000 plus interest at 8 percent from the date of issue of the Writ namely 1 June 1990 to today totalling K640.00

I order judgment for K4,640.00

Lawyer for the Plaintiff: Kopunye Lawyers

Lawyer for the Defendant: O'Connor & Hasu