Charles v Watts

• Jurisdiction: Montserrat
• Court: High Court (Montserrat)
• Judge: Byron, J.
• Judgment Date: 28 March 1983
• Neutral Citation: MS 1983 HC 4
• Docket Number: 84 of 1978
• Date: 28 March 1983

Charles

and

Watts

Byron, J.

84 of 1978

High Court

Tort - Damages — Personal injury

Held: The doctor who attended him could not say definitely that the back pain was a result of the accident. As a result, no finding could be made that the plaintiff's condition resulted from the accident. The court however accepted the plaintiff's evidence that he suffered a heavy jolt in the accident which caused him severe pain. Damages for the plaintiff assessed at $1,200.00.

Facts: The plaintiff's car collided with the defendant's motor car. The plaintiff sustained injury to his back. He did not seek medical attention at that time. Some time later the plaintiff suffered serious back pain. The question for determination was whether the plaintiff's injury was a consequence of the accident.

Appearances:

Mr. Kenneth Allen for the plaintiff.

The defendant in person.

Byron, J.

1 This is a motion for the assessment of damages on a judgment entered in default of appearance on 1 ^st December 1982.

2 The Writ of Summons had been issued on 30 ^th July 1982 and was endorsed with a statement of claim, which claimed damages for personal injured as a result of the defendant's negligent driving. The writ was served on 20 ^th September 1982. The defendant was in court on the hearing of this motion for assessment. The facts that I found are as follows:–

3 On 25 ^th September 1979 about 9.15 p.m. the plaintiff was driving his motorcar M.1792 from North to South along the Belham Public Road. The defendant was driving another vehicle, which approached the plaintiff's vehicle at a very high speed and collided with it striking the vicinity of the right front door right where the plaintiff was sitting. The impact broke the up right of the seat on which the plaintiff was sitting and gave him a heavy jolt. He was dazed for a short while. When he got out of his car he felt severe pain in the region of his back. The plaintiff did not seek medical attention at that time. He relied on local remedies. He took what he described as bush baths. He also took aspiring. The pain in his back continued. He said it grew more serious, and on morning of 10 ^th October 1979, when he got up he felt the pain along with bad feelings.

4 The plaintiff who is Deputy Commissioner of Police had to conduct a Coroner's Inquest in court on 10 ^th October 1979. While he was examining Dr. Sen he had a seizure of pain in the back region and he felt badly at the same time. He fainted and fell back in his chair. He went into the Law Library and lay on a table. Dr. Sen later took him to hospital where Dr. Kothari saw him about 10.15 a.m. and admitted him to hospital.

5 In describing his findings Dr. Kothari said:

“His history was given to me that he collapsed in court and vomited afterwards. He complained of backache and fever for a few days' proceedings this. The only abnormal finding was his blood pressure was a little high, 140 over 100. He told me he had a car accident on 25 ^th September 1979. There was no localized tenderness. There was only general backache. I attributed the general backache to the fever he suffered for the preceding few days.”

When asked specifically to what he attributed the plaintiff injury on 10 ^th October 1979 Dr. Kothari said: –

“I cannot definitely say that I attributed Mr. Charles' injury to the motor car accident because he came to see me on 10 ^th October, 1979 and I had no conception of what the pain was before. It was a generalized backache and I attributed it to the fever which he complained of for the past few days.”

Dr. Kothari said:–

I prescribed him rest. I want to see whether the blood pressure goes down. It did not come down. I prescribed some drugs to lower his blood pressure. On 15 ^th October 1979 he was well enough to go home with the pills for his blood pressure.”

While he was in hospital resting the pain abated very rapidly. He was discharged from hospital on 15 ^th October 1979.

Dr. Kothari saw him again on 20 ^th October 1979. His blood pressure was still high and so his sick leave was extended to 27 ^th October 1979.

The plaintiff said that prior to the accident he was in good health, and had never before had an accident or serious illness. Although he felt very much better the pain recurs when he lifts heavy objects or bends rapidly. As late as 2 ^nd September 1981, he was treated by Dr. Kothari for backache and headache. Dr. Kothari did not proffer any opinion as to the cause of the backache and headache on that occasion, but said he treated him with tablets.

One major issue in this case is to determine the precise nature of the injury, which the plaintiff suffered. When asked about that, Dr. Kothari was not very helpful. He said:–

“It is very difficult for me to give an opinion because I have nothing objective to look at………………

We have to accept what a person says, where the pain is and how the pain is.”

6 In this case as in civil cases, it is the duty of the plaintiff to prove his case to the satisfaction of the court on the balance of probabilities.

7 I accepted on his evidence that at the time of the accident he got a heavy jolt and that as a result he suffered severe pain in the region of the back, which he sustained for some time. I also accept that he was dazed for sometime at the time of the accident....