Glanville (Wesley) v Delroy Campbell and Gwendolyn Brown

• Jurisdiction: Jamaica
• Court: Supreme Court (Jamaica)
• Judgment Date: 04 June 2001
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2001] 6 JJC 0401
• Docket Number: SUIT NO. G012 of 2000
• Date: 04 June 2001

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE OF JAMAICA

IN COMMON LAW

SUIT NO. G012 of 2000

BETWEEN

WESLEY GLANVILLE

PLAINTIFF

AND

DELROY CAMPBELL

DEFENDANT

AND

GWENDOLYN BROWN

DEFENDANT

DAMAGES - Motor vehicle accident - Personal injuries - Pain and suffering - Loss of amenities - Handicap on the labour market

1 The plaintiff, a sixty-three (63) year old gardener/landscaper, was injured when a motor bus, driven by the first defendant and owned by the second defendant, and in which he was a passenger, overturned on Marcus Garvey Drive, at about 9:00 p.m., on the night if October 31, 1998. He returned to work on December 21, 1998, less than two (2) months later, but resigned from his job on January 7, 2000, because he was physically unable to carry out his duties. He also was unable to help around his home with the normal chores, and helping with his grandchildren, and this had made him feel bad about himself. On the 17 ^th and 18 ^th of May 2001, I heard evidence and submissions from counsel on both sides in relation to the extent of the damages to be awarded to this successful plaintiff. The parties, through their respective attorneys had agreed the special damages, and the evidence as well as the submissions of counsel, were directed at the issue of the plaintiff's entitlement to general damages.

2 Several local authorities were cited by counsel on both sides, to suggest what would be an appropriate quantum to be awarded given the nature of the injuries disclosed. At the end of the closing submissions, I indicated that I wished to reserve my decision as to the extent of the award. I did this for two (2) reasons.

• Firstly, I wished to make some comments on the evidence which had been presented; and

• secondly, I wanted to direct some attention to the issue of damages flowing from handicap on the labour market or loss of future earnings, suffered by a successful plaintiff.

3 In the course of her submissions on the issue of general damages, counsel for the Plaintiff, Mrs. Arlene Harrison-Henry submitted that the plaintiff should recover damages, inter alia, for loss of future earnings, or alternatively, handicap on the labour market. The basis should be plaintiffs annual pre-injury wages of $156,000.00, factored by a multiplier of five (5) years, and discounted for tax purposes by twenty-five per cent (25%), for a net figure of $585,000.00. Ms. Robinson for the defence, on the other hand, submitted that no damages should be awarded to the plaintiff under either;

• (1) handicap on the labour market/loss of earning capacity or;

• (2) loss of future earnings.

4 In support of her submission, she cited the decision of the Court of Appeal in MONEX LIMITED AND DERRICK MITCHELL V CAMILLE GRIMES. SCCA 83/96. It seems to me that Miss Robinson's reliance upon this case may be based upon a passage of the judgement of Harrison JA at P. 13 of the report of that case, where he states:

"Loss on the labour market, handicap on the labour market, loss of earning capacity, in my view, may be regarded as synonymous terms. They represent a specific categorization. This head of damages arises where the said victim:

• (a) resumes his employment without any loss of earnings; or

• (b) resumes his employment, at a higher rate of earnings,

but, because of the injury he received, he suffered such a disability that there exists a risk that in the event that his present employment ceases and he has to seek alternative employment on the open labour market, he would less able to vie because of his disability, with an average worker not so affected. (See Moeliker v Reyrolle & Co. Ltd. [1977] 1 A.E.R. 9 )

Loss of future earnings represents a distinctly different circumstance where a victim who, earning a settled wage, has suffered a diminution in his earnings on resuming his employment or assuming new employment, due to his disability. The net annual monetary loss in terms of the reduction in earnings is easily recognizable and quantifiable, in such circumstances."

5 Since on the evidence in the instance case, the plaintiff returned to work after about a three (3) month lay-off and suffered "no diminution in his earnings" at the time and actually resigned about one (1) year later, purportedly because he could no longer carry on his job as gardener/landscaper, there could not be, so the argument would run, "net annual monetary loss in terms of reduction in earnings." Accordingly, there should be no award under this head.

6 However...