Basil v Shortland Shipping Company [2011] SBHC 57; HCSI-CC 253 of 2009 (29 July 2011)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
(Mwanesalua J)

Civil Case No. 253 of 2009

BETWEEN:

JASSINTHA LONGARI BASIL
Claimant (by her Litigation Guardian, Basil Hou)

AND:

SHORTLAND SHIPPING COMPANY
(also known as SHORTLAND SHIPPING SERVICES LIMITED
Defendant

Date of Hearing: 30 May 2011
Date of Decision: 29 July 2011

Ms McSpedden for the Claimant
No Appearance or Attendance for the Defendant

DECISION

Mwanesalua J:

1. The child Claimant in this case boarded the M.V Bikoi owned by the Defendant, after paying for a first class ticket at Yandina to travel to Honiara. At about 1a.m. on 11 July 2007, during the voyage to Honiara the Vessel encountered rough seas and high winds. By that time, the Claimant was sleeping on accommodation supplied by the Defendant, a hot water urn came loose and the boiling water poured from the hot water urn, causing scalding burns to the Claimant. The victim was admitted to the Surgical Ward at the National Referring Hospital when the Vessel arrived in Honiara.

2. The Claimant filed her claim against the Defendant by her litigation guardian, on 30 June 2009. She seeks damages, legal and incidental costs, and future costs and expenses for on going treatment and rehabilitation as a result of her injuries.

3. The Defendant was served with the claim, but failed to file any response or defence. The Claimant therefore obtained default judgment on 24 September 2009 and the hearing on assessment of damages was subsequently set for 24 May 2011. No appearance or attendance was made on behalf of the Defendant during the assessment hearing, even though notice was issued to the Defendant.

Liability

4. The default judgment is in these terms:

" (1) That the Claimant recovers from the Defendant damages to be assessed in respect of the personal injuries suffered as per claim file here-in plus interest from the date of issue of the claim in default of response or defence by the Defendant as required under Rule 5.7 (a) and (c) of the Rules.[1]

(2) The Defendant pays the cost incurred by the Claimants arising out of this case."

5. Injuries

The Claimant suffered extensive burns on her left arm and fore arm, left thigh and leg down to the ankle, left abdomen, back and right thigh. Upon admission, it was estimated that she suffered 25-30% partial thickness burns involving the epidermis, dermis and part of the subcutaneous layer of the skin and the burns had blisters. She was dehydrated which required her to be resuscitated with intravenous fluids.

6. The treatment plan set for her on admission was as follows:

• IV fluids 4 hourly then 8 hourly until dehydration improved.
  
• Antibiotics x 7 days
  
• Sulfadiazine dressing 2-4 hourly.
  
• High protein diet [2]
  

7. The Second Medical Report on the Claimant was made by Dr. Pikacha on 23 September 2010. This Report shows that the Claimant was admitted to the Surgical Ward on 11 July 2007 and was discharged on 31 August 2007. The Report was based on information in the Claimant's Child Health Record Book, as her admission chart was not returned to the medical ward after the first report was written. She was seen by Dr. Pikacha on 7 September 2007 who commented that the wound was relatively clean but advised daily dressing at the Surgical Ward. Then she was seen by Dr. Susuirara on 14 September 2010, who commented that "left thigh clean (donor site) clean also". On 27 September 2010, Dr. Pikacha examined the Claimant again, and noted the following:

(1) "Scalding on the left upper arm has healed with minimal scarring and the function of the left elbow is normal.

(2) Healing of the scaled area on the left upper anterior thigh has healed with some hypertrophic scar but does not affect the range of movement of the left hip. The left knee join is not affected. This hypertrophic scar is disfiguring with areas of hypopigmentation on it but does not require further surgery.

(3) The donor site on the right thigh has also healed with some hypertrophic scar with patches of hypopigmentation, but this scar does not require further surgery.

In my opinion, scaring on the thighs do not adversely affect the function of the hip joints nor the knee joints. But the scaring on both the left and right thighs will be permanent".

8. She was last reviewed by Dr. Susuirara on 8 October 2007, who commented, "both graft site and donor site clean. There is hypertrophic scar over left inquinal crease. He advised stretching exercise for the (L) groin.

9. The medical reports established that the outer layer and second layer of the Claimant's skin were burned through reaching the underlying tissue. The Claimant had to have skin grafts to the burns on her left and right thighs. The scarring on the thighs are permanent and thicken, causing disfigurement, but do not require further surgery. There are minor scarring at the upper arm. It would seem that nerve endings at the skin of the Claimant were destroyed. This is deduced from the fact that the Claimant was in severe pain at the time the boiling water spilt on her but showed no sign of pain at the time of admission.

10. The Claimant seeks reimbursements of expenses incurred during her hospitalisation from 11 July 2007 to 24 October 2007, a total of 106 days. One of the items of special damages was for the repayment of expenses for her daily meals of $150.00 for the 106 days she was admitted at the hospital. But according to Dr. Pikacha's medical report, she was only hospitalised from 11 of July to 31 August 2007 (51 days). The court would agree with Dr. Pikacha's report on this issue as it was confirmed in the Claimant's child book. It would appear that even though she was discharged on 31 August 2007, she visited the surgical ward daily for dressing according to Dr. Pikacha's advice.
Damages

11. There seem to be no previous cases on the assessment of scalding burns in this jurisdiction. In any case, the assessment of damages in each case would be different depending on the nature of the scalding injuries. However, there is no doubt that the burns suffered by the Claimant in this case were serious. She was 11 years old when she sustained the burns but is now 15 years old and still a student. There is no evidence that she would require ongoing treatment and rehabilitation requiring future costs and expenses.

In all the circumstances, I consider that the fair, reasonable and just award for general damages in this case is $26,000.00. The award for special damages is $5,000.00. Interest of 6% on general and special damages from the issue of this claim to the date of this judgment.

ORDER

1. General damages :	$26,000.00
Interest at 6% from issue of claim on 30 June 2009 to date Judgment 29 July 2011 to nearest dollar.	$ 3,248.10 ----------------
	$29,248.10 =========
2. Special damages :	$ 5,000.00
Interest at 6% from issue claim on 30 June 2009 to date Judgment 29 July 2011 to the nearest dollar.	$ 624.60 ----------------
	$ 5,624.60 =========

3. Special damages be paid to litigation guardian.

4. Defendant to pay Claimant's costs (if any) if not agreed to be taxed.

5. The said $29,248.10 be paid into court to be invested by the Registrar on behalf of the Claimant in a term deposit account at Bank South Pacific in Honiara and not paid out in whole or part without the order of a judge of the High Court until the Claimant is 18 years old on 9 June 2014.

Dated this 29th day of July 2011.

THE COURT

---

^[1] Solomon Islands Courts (Civil Procedure) Rules 2007
^[2] (See First Medical Report by IR Selwyn Honiuhi – Director of Nursing Services – National Referral Hospital)dated 8/4/10