Pain, Suffering and Loss of Amenity - Free Essay Example

Advanced Legal Method (Brief) Pain, suffering, loss of amenity This heading of damages is usually under general damages. Since this is a non-pecuniary loss, there is no exact figure to impose on it. The level of damages varies from different claimants. Here, VR will be able to claim damages for the pain, suffering and loss of amenity as a result of suffering the injuries from the accident. The range of damages that will be here has been subjected to the 10% increase in general damages as decided in the case of Simmons v Castle.[1] Firstly, VR suffered contusions to his forehead. He was kept overnight at the hospital, had mild nausea for 2 days and 2 weeks of headaches which responded well to normal doses of paracetamol. He recovered fully by 26th May. According to the Judicial College Board Guidelines (JCB) this will be classified as a minor head injury and damages would range from  £1,788 to  £10,340. Lowest end of the bracket reflects on full recovery within a few weeks. VR recovers from the injury within 3 weeks. He would probably receive around  £1,800 as compensation for pain and suffering. VR does not suffer any loss of amenity Secondly, VR also had a simple undisplaced fracture of nose. According t o the JCB Guidelines, damages under fractures of nose without displacement will be in the range of  £1,375 to  £2,035. Since there was no permanent damage to VRà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s nose, he would not have any loss of amenity. He could to get about  £1,400 as compensation for pain and suffering. Finally, VR sustained crush injury to his right hand. Initial treatment alleviated pain and discomfort but he had to undergo further operation. After the operation, doctor said that VR will never recover full dexterity in that hand. The loss of use is about 10% use of the hand. This will most likely be classified as Moderate Hand Injury under the JCB Guidelines. Damages would range from  £5,060 to  £10,725 where top of the bracket is appropriate where permanent disability remains after surgery. The injury had continuing impact to his hand and gives VR difficulty in counting money, writing and some types of carving motion. His hand also gets stiff and un comfortable in the cold which puts him off his former hobby of owl watching which he used to do twice a month. Since the injury has impacted VR significantly, he would probably receive damages at the top end of the bracket which is  £10,725 for the pain, suffering and loss of amenity he has to endure. The total damages that VR would get for pain, suffering and loss of amenity would be  £13,925. Special Damages Firstly, VR will be able to claim for his partner, MsCarterà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s loss of wages due to taking 10 days unpaid leave to provide care and support for him. MsCarter earns  £420.60 per week and since she lost wages for two working weeks this amounts to a total loss of  £841.20. VR will be able to claim this amount since it was incurred due to MsCarter acting as his caretaker. Secondly, VR can claim for his medical expenses. His decision to operate at CUPA rather than at Loptown General due to the 3-months waiting list will not af fect the amount of damages he will receive because he has a statutory right to receive private treatment.[2] In conclusion, VR will be able to claim the full  £4,600 for his medical expenses in which he paid fully. Thirdly, VR was off work for 10 working days due to the injuries. Since he was still paid his normal take home pay during the 10 days off, the loss he suffered here was his overtime pay during the 10 working days. He normally works 3 overtimes hours a week at  £22 per hour which amounts to  £66 per week and  £132 for two weeks. Furthermore, he had to take two days unpaid leave for medical appointments in which he lost 16 hours of pay at the rate of  £16 per hour. This amounts to a loss of  £256. Hence, the total loss of wages suffered by VR is  £388. Additionally, VR can claim damages for the repair of his car at his usual garage at the cost of  £1,544. This is also the lowest quote he found. VR can also claim for the taxi fares in which he took to the hospital twice for medical examinations. One was  £34 and the other was  £32.50 adding up to a total of  £66.50. Moreover, VR can claim for the  £220 paid by the firm to obtain a formal letter from the doctor regarding his condition and treatment. Finally, VR can claim for the  £220.50 in which he spent at Debenhamà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s for replacement clothing which had been damaged by the accident. VR can produce receipts from the garage, from Debenhamà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s, and from the taxi company he had used to go to the hospital. The total amount of special damages VR can claim is  £7,880.20. General Damages Pain, suffering and loss of amenity are a part of general damages but it is already covered above. The other type of claim under general damages which is valid to VR would be a claim for loss of future earnings. According to VRà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s employee, VR was progressing well an d might be promoted to Master Carver in 12 months where he would be earning  £36 per hour and  £42 per overtime hour but his reduced ability to carry out fine work as a result of this accident has taken VR out of the consideration of his employee for the Master Carver position. In conclusion, VR will be able to claim for a loss of future earnings. However, to be able to do so I would require his education level and also his preferred age of retirement which was not available in the document. Other factors affecting level of damages The injuries suffered by VR were consistent with him being thrown forward by an impact and the injuries could have been avoided had he been wearing his seatbelt. Since VR injuries was partly his own fault, he will be deemed to be contributory negligent. However, being contributory negligent will not defeat his claim.[3] In the case of  ­Froom v Butcher,[4] Lord Denning stated that damages should be reduced by 25% in cases where injuries would be prevented altogether if a seatbelt had been worn. After that, in the cases of J (A Minor) v Wilkins[5] and Gawler v Raettig[6], the court stated that 25% is just a guideline but so far, it can be seen that the courts are reluctant to go above this figure. In conclusion, VRà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s total damages will most likely be reduced by 25% because all his injuries could have been prevented had he been wearing his seatbelt. Summary of quantum of damages to be claimed Pain, suffering and loss of amenity =  £13,925 Special damages =  £7,880.20 Contributory negligence damage reduction = 25% Total damages =  £16,353.90 The total damages that VR can claim for is  £16,353.90 excluding the loss of future earnings which cannot be calculated without his education level and retirement age. Table of Cases Froom v Butcher [1976] 1 QB 286 Gawler v Raettig [2007] EWCA Civ 1560 J (A minor) v Wilkins [2001] RTR 19 Simmons v Castle [2012] EWCA Civ 1039 Table of Legislations Statutes: Law Reform (Personal Injury) Act 1948 Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 Statutory Guidelines: Judicial College Guidelines for the Assessment of General Damages in Personal Injury Cases Bibliography Deakin S, Markesinis and Deakins Tort Law (OUP 2013, 7th edition) Horsey K and Rackley E, Tort Law (OUP 2012, 3rd edition) 1 [1] [2012] EWCA Civ 1039 [2] Law Reform (Personal Injury) Act 1948, s 2(4) [3] Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945, s 1(1) [4] [1976] 1 QB 286 [5] [2001] RTR 19 [6] [2007] EWCA Civ 1560