Administrator General for Jamaica (Administrator of the Easate Eric David Black, deceased, Known as David E.A. Black)

• Jurisdiction: Jamaica
• Court: Supreme Court (Jamaica)
• Judge: BROOKS, J.
• Judgment Date: 30 May 2005
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2005] 5 JJC 3001
• Date: 30 May 2005

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF JAMAICA

CORAM:

BROOKS, J

BETWEEN

The Administrator General for Jamaica (Administrator of the Estate Eric David Black, deceased, also known as David E.A. Black)

CLAIMANT

AND

The Attorney General of Jamaica

DEFENDANT

DAMAGES - Fatal accident

1 When I made the award in this matter on the 20 ^th May, I promised to put my reasons in writing. I now do so.

2 Mr. Eric David Black was murdered sometime between the 9 ^th and 14 ^th September 1995. His assailants unlawfully beat him and he succumbed to the injuries so sustained. His decomposing corpse was later recovered at sea in a horrific state.

3 Three persons were convicted for this crime. They were police officers who were at the time acting as agents of the State.

4 Against this background, the Attorney General did not seek to contest the issue of liability when the present action was brought against him. The claimant is the Administrator General for Jamaica who has been appointed the administrator of Mr. Black's estate.

5 In light of the fact that there were convictions secured in a criminal court it was surprising that, before this tribunal, the evidence produced in support of the present claim for compensation was, at best, sparse.

6 The claimant seeks compensation under the following heads:

• 1. Pursuant to the Law Reform ( Miscellaneous Provisions) Act.

• 2. Pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution of Jamaica.

• 3. Aggravated damages and Exemplary Damages.

• 4. Refund of funeral expenses

7 (Though a claim under the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act was pleaded, this was not pursued before the Court.)

8 I shall first outline the evidence provided by the claimant and thereafter determine what, if any, award may be made under each head.

9 Evidence

10 There was no witness called to testify as to how and under what circumstances Mr. Black was assaulted and killed. Only two clues were given to the Court in this regard. The first was contained in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Statement of Claim, which averred as follows:

• "4. In or about September 1995 members of the Jamaica Constabulary Force, including Billy West, Karl Wauchorpe and Rudolph Dodd. unlawfully beat, assaulted and/or battered the deceased, as a result the deceased suffered severe personal injuries from which he died.

• 5. The said members of the Jamaica Constabulary Force acted unlawfully, arbitrarily and are in breach of the Constitution of Jamaica as a consequence the deceased was:

  • a. wrongfully and/or unlawfully deprived of his life:

  • b. wrongfully and/or unlawfully deprived of his liberty;

  • c. subjected to torture and/or inhuman and/or degrading punishment."

11 The second clue was contained in the report of a post mortem examination conducted on Mr. Black's body by a Dr. Odunfa. The report stated, in part:

"The body is that of a 6' 2" about 175lbs. (male?) said to be 52 years old. The body is in a state of advanced decomposition with extensive mutilation, skin (peeling?) and abdominal ballooning. However, there are no signs of any (significant?) probably lethal antemortem injuries."

12 and concluded that:

"Cause of death is undetermined due to decomposition."

13 (The words in brackets are assumed based on incomplete photocopying of the report.)

14 In allowing a judgment in default of defence to be entered against him the Attorney General is deemed to have admitted the contents of the paragraphs of the Statement of Claim, which deal with liability, including those quoted above. (See Young v Thomas [1892] 2 Ch. 134 at p. 137.)

15 There was also no contest to the contents of the Post Mortem Report, which, no doubt, the Crown would have relied on in its case against the offending police officers.

16 The other evidence, proffered by the claimant, that concerned Mr. Black's death, were three certificates issued by the Deputy Registrar of the Supreme Court as to the conviction of the three police officers.

17 The evidence as to damages came from Mr. Garfield Heron, a long-time friend, colleague, housemate, and eventually, customer of Mr. Black. Mr. Heron testified as to his own qualifications as an auto-mechanic and sought to say that Mr. Black was similarly qualified. It proved however that they had worked at different establishments and so Mr. Heron's information would have been hearsay and inadmissible. What could be gleaned from Mr. Heron's testimony, which was relevant to this claim, is that Mr. Black was a very talented auto-mechanic, with experience gained in New York as well as in Jamaica.

18 Mr. Black returned to Jamaica during the 1980's and was a self-employed mechanic operating his own business. Mr. Heron testified that Mr. Black was a very busy mechanic and so there were only a few occasions when he would do work for Mr. Heron. One job was the overhaul of the pair of engines and the transmission for a Spoil Fisherman boat. Other jobs involved some minor servicing of Mr. Heron's motorcars.

19 Mr. Heron says that he paid approximately $300,000.00 for the boat job and between $5,000.00 and $25,000.00 for each of the motorcar jobs.

20 No evidence was adduced as to the income, expenditure or profitability of Mr. Black's business. Neither was the Court given the benefit of any evidence as to whether he had any employees, what his personal expenses were, if he saved any money, or as to his lifestyle.

21 What the claimant did was to put into evidence, with the consent of the Attorney General's counsel, a copy of the Jamaica Employers Federation's Wage Salary and Benefits Survey for Supervisory Clerical and Hourly Rated Employees ("JEF Survey"). In particular, counsel for the claimant directed the court's attention to the earnings of the following categories listed therein:

Pg. #	Job Title	Maximum	Minimum	Mean
71	Mechanical Technician	1,121,278	641,940	881,609
74	Mechanic	1,151,662	383,330	641,785

22 I shall now examine the claim for damages based on that evidence.

23 Law Reform ( Miscellaneous Provisions) Act

24 Under the provisions of this Act the estate of the deceased is entitled to benefit from any claim to which the deceased would have been entitled had he survived the fatal incident. One of these claims is for the Loss of Expectation of life. Another is for Loss of Earnings

25 (a) Loss of Expectation of Life

26 This award is to be a conventional sum.

27 Mr. Hogarth, for the claimant, submitted that awards of $10,000.00 were being made from as far back as 1993 as is demonstrated by the case of Alicia Dixon (Administratrix estate Christopher Dixon, deceased) v. Kenneth Harris and the Attorney General (1993) 30 JLR 67. He submitted that the award should be given a present day value and that it be updated using the consumer price index of 2041.7 (Feb. 2005). Using that method, Mr. Hogarth submits that $48,017.40 is the appropriate award for this head.

28 Mr Haisley for the Attorney General countered that in 1998 the Court of Appeal did not disturb an award of $3,000.00 for this head of damages in the case of Doris Fuller (Administratrix Estate Agana Barrett deceased) v The Attorney General (1998) 56 WIR 337. He also cited the oral judgment of Wesley James J. in Birdie Johnson (mother of deceased Patrick Keyes) v The Attorney General (C.L. J 359 /1990), in which the sum of S10,000.00 was awarded in August 2003.

29 Although the sum awarded under this head is a conventional one, it ought not to be a nominal one. The Court of Appeal, in the case of Anthony Rose and anr. v. Thomas Smith (1985) 22...