Pakau v Motor Vehicles Insurance (PNG) Trust [1993] PGNC 24; N1160 (22 July 1993)

N1160

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[In the National Court of Justice]

WS 826 OF 1991

MONDO PAKAU

V

MOTOR VEHICLES INSURANCE (PNG) TRUST

Mount Hagen: Woods J.
18 June 22 July 1993

Damages - Motor Vehicle accident - Back injuries - Elderly retired policeman - General damages K15,000 - Contributory negligence.

CASES CITED:

The following cases are cited in this judgement:

Kuntu v M.V.I.T. [1991] Unreported N996.
Pupti v M.V.I.T. [1986] PNGLR 283.
Walpe v M.V.I.T [1993] Unreported N1133

P Kopunye for the Plaintiff.
A Kandakasi for the Respondent.

22 July 1993

WOODS J: The Plaintiff is claiming damages for injuries he received when he was involved in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on the Enga Highway between Porgera and Laiagam on 21 April 1990. The Defendant has admitted some liability for the damages and liability has been agreed at 70% against the Defendant and 30% against the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is an elderly retired policeman. Calculating his age from the fact that he joined the police force in 1950 and retired in 1975 I would assess his age at about 60 years.

Following the accident he was admitted to Porgera Health Centre on 21 April 1990. After two days he was still observed to be bed ridden and had very limited movement so he was referred to Mount Hagen General Hospital where he was admitted on 23 April. He was diagnosed as having sustained compression fractures of the 11 and 12 vertebrae. He was treated with analgesics and advised to rest in bed for 6 weeks and discharged from Hospital on 30 April 1990.

When examined in July 1990 it was noted that he had pain over the fracture site and movements of the spine were restricted. Assessments of the disability ranged between 25% and 35%. Such disability would restrict his ability to carry out routine work like gardening and carrying of heavy loads. Other medical assessment made a year later noted that the disability would increase with kyphosis. It is noted that he would have to make more use of a walking stick.

Of course we must realise that we are dealing with an elderly man so such restrictions or disability would be more pronounced. However it is not that we are considering an elderly man who is completely dependant on rural labour for his livelihood. First he is past the retiring age and normal life expectancy age and he is a retired policeman on a pension. So whether by virtue of age or his work he is at the age when he would be assisted in his life by his family let alone by his pension. However economic loss is not a factor in the claim apart from the normal expectation of a retired village man expecting to participate in the rural subsistence lifestyle.

Back injuries are notoriously difficult for courts to assess damages for as it is very hard to really assess what the difficulty is. I am satisfied that there is some problem for a man of this age.

In the case Walpe V M.V.I.T. [1993] N1133 the plaintiff was a villager aged about 40 years and an amount of K12,000 was assessed for general damages. In Pupti V M.V.I.T. [1986] PNGLR 283 a village woman who has a compression injury to the spine was awarded K20,000 general damages. In Kuntu V M.V.I.T. [1991] N996 an 18 year old plaintiff received back and arm injuries and received K18,000 general damages.

In the above assessments the age of the plaintiff would have had some bearing on the assessment, for example with the young man he would be restricted in many of the activities that a young man could and would be expected to participate in. However here we have an elderly man who would be leading a more sedentary lifestyle. However he would have clearly suffered and continue to suffer some pain and inconvenience.

I assess a figure of K15,000 for general damages. This will be reduced by 30% to K10,500. I will allow interest at 8 percent from the date of the writ being 19 November 1991 which calculates at K1,403.83.

I order Judgement for K11,903.83.

____________________________________

Lawyer for the Plaintiff: Kopunye Lawyers
Lawyer for the Defendant: Young & Williams