McKenzie (Winston) and Calvin Watson v Carlos Brown and George Mendez
| Jurisdiction | Jamaica |
| Judge | BROOKS, J. |
| Judgment Date | 21 March 2006 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [2006] 3 JJC 2101 |
| Court | Supreme Court (Jamaica) |
| Date | 21 March 2006 |
DAMAGES - Assessment of damages - Bicycle/Motor vehicle accident
ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES
On 22 nd March 2002 Mr. Winston McKenzie and Mr. Calvin Watson were unfortunately knocked, by a truck, from a bicycle for which Mr. McKenzie was the rider and Mr. Watson a passenger. The vehicle was owned and being driven by the First and Second Defendants respectively. The Defendants failed to enter an appearance to the suit filed by the Claimants and a judgment in default, with damages to be assessed, was entered on 12 th December 2002. The Claimants now seek that assessment. I shall treat with them in turn.
Re Winston McKenzie
General Damages
The evidence before the court concerning Mr. McKenzie's medical condition came mostly from a report dated 12 th December 2002 from a Dr. Sherard Little. It indicated that Mr. McKenzie had suffered multiple trauma, multiple abrasions to the right forearm and right lower limb and soft tissue contusion of the right thigh. Upon admission to hospital he was not able to urinate on his own and so a urethral catheter had to be employed initially. Mr. McKenzie was treated with analgesics and his condition rapidly improved. He was discharged on the 24 th March; two days later.
On April 8, 2002 Mr. McKenzie was again examined at the hospital, he having complained of a swelling of the right leg. He was assessed as having haematoma as a result of the injury but no treatment was prescribed. His condition was reviewed in December 2002 but no further follow up was deemed necessary. From the doctor's report there is no evidence of skeletal abnormality of Mr. McKenzie's spine or right lower limb. He has however testified that since suffering this injury he sometimes feels pain in his back and he cannot now lift any heavy weights.
He testified that he was incapacitated for about two months and after that period he had to take a lighter job than the one he previously had done because of his inability to lift weights. This aspect was an important part of his job as a labourer in the construction industry.
In his context of that background Miss Stephenson referred to the cases of Garfield Scott v Donovan Cheddisingh and Anor; reported at Vol. 4 Khan page 214 and Henry Bryan v Noel Hoshue and Anor; Volume 5 Khan page 177.
I find that the injuries suffered by the respective plaintiffs in those cases are sufficiently similar in nature for the cases to be a good guide as to the damages to be awarded for general damages. In Scott, the claimant suffered excruciating pains, headaches, contusions to the right shoulder and hip, a puncture wound to the left forearm and a swollen, painful and tender knee. He was left with a painful right hip when lifting heavy objects and was reported to have been experiencing difficulty playing sports.
Miss Stephenson submitted that the $300,000.00 awarded to Mr. Scott in July 1997 was worth $652.802.68 when updated using the CPI for January 2006 of 2,295.7.
In Bryan, the claimant was reported to have suffered shock, excruciating pains, dizzy spells, abrasions of the scalp, pains in the back and severe headaches. The $350,000.00 awarded to Mr. Bryan on September 1997 is now worth $740,889.81 in today's money using the index mentioned before.
Miss Stephenson, based on those cases, submitted that the proper award for pain and suffering and loss of amenities suffered by Mr. McKenzie was $800,000.00.
I find that that figure is too large. It appears to me that both the claimants in Scott and Bryan continued to suffer from their injuries to a greater extent that does Mr. McKenzie. In that regard a smaller award than both those previously mentioned for the cases cited would be more appropriate...
To continue reading
Request your trial