Wangi v The State [1996] PGNC 22; N1580 (4 September 1996)

Unreported National Court Decisions

N1580

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

WS 48 OF 1993
REX TONGA WANGI
PLAINTIFF
V
THE STATE
DEFENDANT

Kokopo

Woods AJ
15 August 1996
4 September 1996

DAMAGES - personal injuries - amputation of leg - labourer - general damages K36,000.

Cases Cited

Korrolly v MVIT [1991] PNGLR 415

Mandui v The State (1996) Unreported N1425

Terema v MVIT [1994] PNGLR 41

Counsel

S Tedor for the Plaintiff

No Appearance for the Defendant

4 September 1996

WOODS AJ: The Plaintiff is claiming damages for personal injuries he received when he was a passenger in a vehicle owned by the State, a Mazda truck registered number ZSU 827, which crashed into a container near the Transport Yard at Rabaul on the 27th August 1992 and he received severe injuries as a result of that incident.

Judgement was signed against the State for damages to be assessed so this has come before me purely on the assessment of damages. There has been no appearance by the State at this hearing although the State was represented at the pre-trial mention of this matter when the date for trial was set.

The plaintiff is aged about 38 years and was employed as a labourer at the Vudal Agricultural College. Following the accident he was admitted to the Nonga Hospital at Rabaul with injuries to his left leg and the severity of the injuries led to his leg being amputated at the knee joint. Following this he was terminated from his employment.

GENERAL DAMAGES.

The Plaintiff has clearly lost the ability to engage in normal activities because of his disability. Awards for general damages for the amputation of a leg have ranged from K20,000 to K40,000. The recent cases are Terema V M.V.I.T. [1994] PNGLR 41 where a married woman aged 34 years was awarded K26,000 and Mandui V The State [1996] Unreported N 1425 where a young 28 years old C.I.S. warder who was very active in sport was awarded K40,000. Considering the situation in those cases and comparing them to this case before me now I consider an amount of K36,000 is appropriate for general damages for the loss of the leg and the pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life.

ECONOMIC LOSS.

At the time of the accident the plaintiff was employed as a labourer on a wage of K45,00 per week. He has since been terminated from his job. There is no evidence that the plaintiff has any special knowledge or expertise which would enable him to get any employment which would be open to him with such a disability. The court must therefore accept that with this disability he will be unable to get any employment in the future. In the circumstances it is appropriate to consider the loss of future income for the rest of what would have been his normal working life until the age of at least 55 years in such employment as he had at the time of the accident. There is first of all the past economic loss since the date of the accident till to-day being 4 years at K45.00 per week which assesses at K9,405.00 Interest on that at 4% since 27th August 1992 is K1,512.00.

Future economic loss for 13 years till the age of 55 years at the rate of K45.00 per week on the 3% tables comes to K25,335.00.

There is also a claim for future medical expenses such as for an artificial leg. However there is no evidence to support any quantification of such a claim. Without an appropriate authority for the cost of an artificial leg this court cannot just create a figure. In Mandui’s case there was a figure of K4,376 considered for future medical expenses for the cost of artificial limb and sump socks. In Korrolly v M.V.I.T. [1991] PNGLR 415 future medical expenses was assessed at K2,600. In the absence of any other authority I will estimate an amount of K4,500 for future expenses.

To Summarise.

General Damages	K36,000.00
Interest on part	K2,314,52
Past Economic Loss plus interest	K10,917.00
Future Economic Loss	K25,335.00
Future Medical Expenses	K4,500.00
Total	K79,066.52

I order judgement for the Plaintiff in the sum of K79,066.52.

Lawyer for the Plaintiff: S Tedor & Associates.