Jeffers v Farrell

• Jurisdiction: Montserrat
• Court: High Court (Montserrat)
• Judge: Redhead, J.
• Judgment Date: 07 December 1990
• Neutral Citation: MS 1990 HC 2
• Docket Number: 39 of 1989
• Date: 07 December 1990

Jeffers

and

Farrell

Redhead, J.

39 of 1989

High Court

Damages - Personal injury — Motor vehicular accident — Collision of motor cars owned by defendant and plaintiff — Defendant accepted liability — Plaintiff, hairdresser as occupation — Unable to stand for very long owing to injuries in legs — Compensation for injuries suffered, disabilities, loss of amenities — General damages awarded — $51,512.76.

Redhead, J.

1 The plaintiff is now 25 years old. She was born in England, her father is a Montserratian. Her mother is Kittitian. She is a qualified hairdresser. In 1987 the plaintiff came to Montserrat to gain wider experience in her profession. She had planned to work in Montserrat for about 111 years, gain experience and then return to England.

2 On 17th January, 1988, the plaintiff was driving her motor car along the public main road near the Groves, Montserrat when her motor car was involved in a collision with another motor car owned by the defendant and driven by the defendant's servant, Erwin Farrell.

3 The plaintiff has no recollection of how the accident occurred. But the defendant has accepted liability. The only question to be determined therefore is the question of quantum of damages which would be awarded to the plaintiff.

4 The plaintiff was severely injured in the accident. She was taken to the Glendon Hospital after the accident. She was unconscious. She regained consciousness at the hospital. She was in severe pains. She was unable to lift her right hand to do anything. She was unable to move. She stayed at the Glendon Hospital for one night. She was then flown to a hospital in Guadeloupe by special charter. She spent three nights in hospital in Guadeloupe in the intensive care unit.

5 The plaintiff was then taken back to the Glendon Hospital, back to Montserrat where she spent about three weeks. She then went back to England where she saw her doctor. She was in a wheelchair for about five days. After which she was given crutches. She was using them up to May 1988.

6 The plaintiff returned to Montserrat. She returned to her ns unable to do hairdressing because of her inability to stand for long periods. As a result, she did receptionist work for six weeks. The plaintiff then returned to England. She again went back to her hairdressing job but had to give it up after a short while because her ankle kept swelling whenever she stands for long periods. As a result the plaintiff obtained a job as a receptionist.

7 As I said above, the plaintiff was seriously injured in the accident. In the accident she sustained head injuries, concussion, fracture of the left mandible, lacerations of the lips and face. She had three fractured ribs and contused lung. She also sustained a fracture of the right ankle.

8 Mr. Lewis, Surgeon Specialist at the Glendon Hospital said in evidence before the court, after describing her injuries, that in June 1986 the plaintiff had episodes of headache which was related to the head injuries. Mr. Lewis said that he was not in a position to say whether the headaches would stop because he had not seen her for some time.

In addition in his report dated 23rd March, 1989, Mr. Lewis said inter alia:–

“(She developed traumatic shock and signs of post trauma pulmonary odema. She required transfusion and was transferred to the intensive care unit in Guadeloupe …for specialist treatment. She returned from Guadeloupe on 21st January, 1988 and was discharged home on 2nd February, 1988…Miss Jeffers has had to have Specialist orthodontic and reconstructive services in the United Kingdom, and is expected to have residual permanent scarring of her face.”

9 Mr. Lewis agreed that Miss Jeffers has recovered very well and that the facial injuries left. only a small scar.

10 The plaintiff had had plastic surgery in England. A photograph of the plaintiff was taken before the plastic surgery was done. The photograph is an exhibit. I am of the view that looking at the photograph and having seen the plaintiff in court, that the plastic surgeon had done a very good job in restoring the plaintiff to her former beauty.

11 The plaintiff is young, she is attractive, she is unmarried. I do not think that the scar in her face makes her less attractive and so lessens her chances of marriage if it is her desire so to do.

12 The plaintiff said in evidence that because of the injury to her ankle she is unable to wear high heel shoes. Prior...