Dowd v Metropolitan Transport Trust & Motor Accidents Insurance Board
[1988] TASSC 78
•28 March 1988
Serial No B10/1988
List "B"
COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
CITATION:Dowd v Metropolitan Transport trust & Motor Accidents Insurance Board [1988] TASSC 78; B10/1988
PARTIES: DOWD, Patrick Thomas
v
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT TRUST &
MOTOR ACCIDENTS INSURANCE BOARD
FILE NO/S: 2237/1984
DELIVERED ON: 28 March 1988
JUDGMENT OF: Wright J
Judgment Number: B10/1988
Number of paragraphs: 41
Serial No B10/1988
List "B"
File No 2237/1984
PATRICK THOMAS DOWD v METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT TRUST & MOTOR ACCIDENTS INSURANCE BOARD
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT WRIGHT J
28 March 1988
On the 12 August 1983, the plaintiff Patrick Thomas Dowd was a passenger in a bus travelling from Moonah towards Hobart. The bus was owned and operated by the Metropolitan Transport Trust and was being driven by Mr Frank Winfield. Due to the unexpected manoeuvre of a motor car in front of the bus Mr Winfield applied the brakes heavily, and Mr Dowd, who was standing in the aisle was sent sprawling forward, finishing up upon the floor of the bus adjacent to the driver's position. At first the plaintiff believed that he had sustained only minor injuries and continued on his way to work at the Department of Main Roads in Hobart. However, it soon became apparent that the trauma was more severe than was at first thought and the plaintiff was driven home during the course of the morning by a fellow employee. It is alleged that since that time the plaintiff's condition has deteriorated substantially and spinal injuries which first manifested themselves by pain in the neck, have now become so troublesome in the lumbar sacral area, and are the source of such chronic and persistent pain, that despite surgical and other medical treatment, the plaintiff has been obliged to retire from his employment on a pension.
The plaintiff who is now aged 48 years and is married with three dependent children, has instituted proceedings in negligence against the Metropolitan Transport Trust and the Motor Accidents Insurance Board, alleging negligence both on the part of the bus driver and the driver of the unidentified motor car which caused Mr Winfield to apply the brakes as and when he did.
The defendants have admitted liability but interlocutory judgment was not entered prior to trial to enable both parties to have the advantage of the Pre–trial Rules. It is agreed that upon my assessment of damages judgment should be entered against both defendants for the damages so assessed.
In addition to the undisputed facts set out above, I find the following facts.
The plaintiff is now a resident of Rosetta and spent his early life in southern Tasmania. He attended the Campbell Street Primary School and continued through the Catholic education system until the age of 17 when he obtained his Schools Board Certificate. He then left to start work with the Hydro Electric Commission as a junior clerk in the Stores and Purchasing Department, where he remained for approximately 7 years. Following this, he went to New Guinea to do voluntary lay missionary work for the Passionist Fathers, a Catholic organisation. He spent approximately 6 months learning teaching skills and was then given a primary teaching post at an outstation near the Irianjian border. He carried out his teaching duties for a period of approximately 2¼ years when he contracted malaria and had to return to Tasmania.
On his return, he worked with Ansett Airlines and the A.BC and then studied accountancy in Victoria. However, due to his indifferent health resulting from the malaria, he failed to complete this course. In 1967 he joined the Department of Main Roads as a cost clerk and progressed to become an industrial clerk grade 6, dealing with industrial and compensation matters. Until the accident in August 1983, he had no intention of retiring from his employment with the Department before he had reached the age of 65 years. He was a competent handy man, and apart from incurring a back strain in 1975 which cleared up without complication or residual disability, and which has caused no problem since, and apart from the malarial illness which has caused no trouble since 1970, the plaintiff was generally a fit and able bodied man until 12 August 1983.
He and his wife married in 1970 when he was 31 and she was 29 years of age. For medical reasons they were unable to have children of their own and they adopted three children who are now aged between 8 and 13 years.
On the day of the accident after being taken home, Mr Dowd went to bed and slept for the remainder of the day. He had grazed his forearm in the fall in the area of the elbow and he generally felt jarred, particularly in the lower back and neck. The following day his hip and arm were stiff and his back was sore. He consulted a local medical practitioner, Dr McLeod who diagnosed a whip lash type injury. Dr McLeod prescribed a soft collar and ultra sound therapy and some tablets. The plaintiff attended for treatment daily over a period of two weeks, during which his neck remained stiff and painful and restricted in movement. Following this, the neck pain diminished gradually but he still found it necessary to wear a soft collar for some 18 months after the accident, particularly when driving his motor car or travelling by public transport. Initially, he was too sore to drive and his wife drove him to and from medical treatment.
In August/September 1983, Dr McLeod referred him to the Douglas Parker Rehabilitation Centre where he received ultra sound treatment and manipulation, and was provided with a back brace. The plaintiff now uses the brace at home and whenever he travels in a motor car.
As already stated, during the weeks immediately following the accident, the plaintiff's neck improved but his back worsened. He returned to work about 6 or 7 weeks after the accident, but significant symptoms still persisted and he was referred by Dr McLeod to Mr Law in October 1983. Mr Law prescribed intensive physiotherapy and the plaintiff had fifty visits or more to a physiotherapist. Rather than helping his condition, this seemed to aggravate it and in early 1984, he was referred to Dr Michael Jackson, a pain treatment specialist.
His initial treatment from Dr Jackson consisted of a bilateral facet block which, rather than diminishing his pain, caused an immediate and sudden increase in symptoms. On advising Dr Jackson of these unexpected sequelae, the plaintiff was readmitted into hospital where he received an epidural injection. This treatment gave substantial partial relief which lasted for several weeks, during which time the plaintiff was able to return to work at the Department of Main Roads.
He had a second but less successful epidural injection from Dr Jackson in November 1984. During this time he was supplied with a TENS machine which is an electronic device used for the symptomatic relief of chronic spinal pain. He used this three or four times each day for periods up to an hour at a time. It gave some partial symptomatic relief, but was by no means wholly successful in alleviating the plaintiff's pain. The plaintiff still continues to use the TENS machine for this purpose.
The plaintiff continued to work at his old job with the Department of Main Roads during 1984 and early 1985, but he found that sitting at a desk for long periods of time tended to exacerbate the pain. Accordingly, he tried to work off a cupboard and, during lunch breaks and at other times during the day, he would sometimes lie on the floor in his office for the purpose of easing his back pain. As his wife's evidence confirmed, he found that his determination to continue in his job, was so stressful that he would frequently go to bed immediately upon returning home at night and would spend his weekends in bed or resting. Despite his determination to continue in his job he found it necessary to take substantial time off work as a result of back pain. His fellow employees and superior officers at the Department of Main Roads noticed that the plaintiff had slowed down in his movements and appeared to be in chronic pain following the accident. They also noticed that his work efficiency diminished to approximately 40 to 60 percent of his pre–accident level. His predicament was discussed at staff meetings without any feasible scheme being devised to enable his redeployment within the department.
In March 1985, Mr Dowd was referred by Dr Jackson to Mr RWL Turner, an orthopaedic surgeon who recommended a spinal fusion. This operation was performed on the 20 March 1985 at St. Helens Hospital. The plaintiff was confined to bed for nearly a week, during which time he was connected to a drip and a catheter. The operation was performed by way of an anterior approach and this has produced a long scar on the plaintiff's abdomen at belt level. Mr Buzzard expressed some surprise that this procedure was adopted but it is clearly an accepted surgical technique and was regarded as unremarkable by other medical experts. The plaintiff was gradually remobilised and discharged from hospital on the 5 April 1985. He was off work for a period of approximately 4½ months following the operation. For the first three months he was virtually restricted to bed except for visits to the toilet, the shower and the meal table. He found during this period of time that it was agonising for him to sit for more than 10 minutes at a time. His wife had to attend to many of his needs during this time. In the months that followed his back continued to improve and as a result, the plaintiff was able to move about more freely and take exercise by walking around the neighbourhood.
He returned to work on the 12 August 1985, the second anniversary of his injury, but he found that sitting at a desk continued to produce problems in his back. He resorted to working off a cupboard top but the renewed onset of symptoms soon resulted in the same pains, stresses and anxieties as before. He returned to see Dr Jackson and in March of 1986, he underwent another bilateral facet block. Once again that particular treatment seems to have been counter productive and as the plaintiff said, "It stirred everything up again".
During the period from April to July 1986, the plaintiff missed a substantial amount of work and he again attended the Douglas Parker Rehabilitation Centre for physiotherapy, hydrotherapy, exercises and occupational therapy. He attended the Douglas Parker Centre for approximately ten weeks, two days a week, three hours a day. The insurers who were bearing the financial brunt of his frequent absences from work, then referred him to Dr Russell Gibbs, who in turn referred him back to Mr Turner for more physiotherapy and manipulation. The plaintiff perceived that his position was not improving at all and in August 1986, shortly after the third anniversary of his accident, he requested Mr Turner to refer him to Mr O'Brien in Melbourne, an orthopaedic surgeon specializing in spinal surgery, for a second opinion as to the success or otherwise of the spinal fusion.
Mr O'Brien confirmed the success of the operation following a discogram on 28, 29 August in Melbourne. The plaintiff was greatly reassured by this and when Mr O'Brien suggested that he seriously consider retirement, his initial reaction was to reject this advice as he thought he would be able to continue in his job. He also had conflicting advice from Mr Turner who felt that he was too young to retire and that work in itself constituted a useful form of occupational therapy to the plaintiff.
In August 1986 Mr Paul Roach, the plaintiff's immediate superior in the Department of Main Roads went to see him at his home as a result of discussions and decisions made at executive level in the department. It was tactfully suggested to the plaintiff by Mr Roach that he should consider an early retirement. Once again however, the plaintiff was resistant to this suggestion and wished to persevere, despite the knowledge that impending changes to the Retirement Benefits Fund Act may well reduce his pension[i] entitlement if he deferred his retirement decision beyond the early months of 1987.
In consultation with Mr Turner, it was arranged by Dr Gibbs that the plaintiff should attend the Illawarra Rehabilitation Centre in New South Wales for a month's intensive treatment. The plaintiff approached this programme with guarded optimism and it is plain that as the exercises, physiotherapy, occupational therapy and counselling sessions continued at Illawarra, he began to feel a lot better. His general physical fitness certainly improved markedly and he has made every effort to continue regular exercise to sustain this level of fitness since he returned to Tasmania. He joined the Lifestyle Fitness Centre in Hobart and, since its closure a few months ago, he has attended the Bobby Parsons Swimming Centre. However, it is plain that the treatments at Illawarra did not eliminate the back pain; as the plaintiff said, "It was a bit better because I think I was fitter and I was more mobile".
It was suggested during the course of the trial that a sedentary job, rather than exacerbating or increasing the plaintiff's back pain, should be regarded as the ideal occupation for someone with the plaintiff's type of disability. It was also suggested that the plaintiff's perseverance with quite a strict regime of physical exercise, tended to suggest that his complaints of pain were substantially exaggerated. It was also suggested that the plaintiff's final decision to retire shortly prior to the trial in November 1987, should be regarded as premature and unjustified, and it was also contended that the continuation of the plaintiff's pain following the successful spinal fusion, indicated that what pain he had was the product of a functional overlay. These submissions by defence counsel were based in part upon opinions expressed by medical practitioners who gave evidence.
I do not find it necessary to make a detailed analysis of the various medical opinions that were ventured during the course of the trial. It is well known, and indeed, was acknowledged by the medical witnesses on both sides, that it is far from easy to diagnose the precise source of chronic back pain. Mr Antony John Buzzard, a highly qualified orthopaedic surgeon from Melbourne, suggested that the plaintiff's symptoms may be wholly or partly attributable to epidural fibrosis or arachnoiditis. Whilst one is not able to completely discount this theory, the fact remains that if either epidural fibrosis or arachnoiditis is the cause of the plaintiff's symptoms, it has almost certainly been produced as a result of bona fide medical treatment, administered in consequence of the original back injury in August of 1983, and it is thus directly causally connected with the accident. It was not argued that there was any element of novus actus interveniens. Mr Buzzard also suggested that the accident mechanism claimed by the plaintiff and his medical advisers to have caused injury to his lower back was unlikely to have produced damage of this kind. However I reject this proposition. It is clearly contrary to the opinion of Mr O'Brien, Mr Duffy and Mr Turner and it also tends to fly in the face of the established chronology of events before, during and immediately following the incident on the bus. I think Mr Buzzard's view was substantially influenced by an inaccurate appreciation of when the plaintiff first experienced pain in the lower back.
I am also far from persuaded that the plaintiff's present condition has functional, rather than organic roots. The opinion of Dr Paul Kornan to the contrary was, I think, formulated to a significant degree, either upon assessments and materials which were not disclosed before me, or which I reject. For example I do not accept Dr Kornan's assessment that the plaintiff is of a suggestible personality. The plaintiff gave evidence in the witness box over a number of hours and he certainly did not appear to me to be suggestible, nor did this diagnosis accord with the opinion of Dr Pargiter and the personal perceptions of family friends and his wife who gave evidence. I find that the accident on 12 August 1983 caused the present disabilities of which the plaintiff complains. I think the preponderance of the medical evidence clearly supports that conclusion. It is my assessment of the plaintiff, aided by the medical evidence given on his behalf, and the personal histories given by family friends and fellow employees, coupled with my assessment of him in the witness box, that he has made a prolonged and conscientious effort to overcome his physical disability and to continue in his employment. He is now a sad looking man who appears much older than his stated 48 years of age. I think that he suffers from a genuine depression and mild anxiety as stated by Dr Pargiter. As Mr GP Duffy, orthopaedic surgeon said:
"Genuine depression can be a feature of constant pain. People can reach the stage where they feel they can no longer deal with the pain, even though the pain in itself may not be greater [than previously]. They reach the stage where they can't cope, they feel they can't cope and indeed because of that, they can't cope."
In short, the attritional effect of chronic pain has reached such a degree that the plaintiff feels, and justifiably so, that he can no longer continue in his employment. I find that although his is basically a sedentary job it has become seriously disrupted by the plaintiff's preoccupation with his painful back and his fairly constant need to change his position and posture to achieve some measure of relief. During the course of the trial the plaintiff frequently altered his position in the witness box and spent a good deal of time lying on a seat in the public gallery after his evidence was completed. Such behaviour could be seen as a rather obvious or flamboyant way of reinforcing his complaints of chronic pain, but having seen and heard the plaintiff, his wife, fellow employees and family friends, none of whom gave me reason to doubt their veracity or reliability, I am quite persuaded that the plaintiff's behaviour proceeded essentially from genuine pain and discomfort. The following passage in Mrs Dowd's evidence (p377 of the transcript) provides a fairly graphic picture of the plaintiff's condition during 1987.
"Well through 1987 he had some time off in January and a bit off in March and one or two days through till September. What was his condition like during that period?.....What – the – –?
'87, from January through till August?.....Well he wasn't good. He was at work. He was going – he was going with great difficulty. He was coming home and either going to bed or lying on the floor or spending the time in bed at the weekend or whatever, and really our efforts would have been directed at getting him to work.
And what happened at the weekends?.....Well often times he lied on the floor. Sometimes he didn't get up but it seemed to me – it got to the stage where it seemed to me that if he went to work and stayed there, you know, until around five, then at the weekend that was it. He needed to rest so that he'd be re–charged on Monday to start again, and that's how we were going.
Had he been – you said he was loosened up – I'm not sure whether that's your term, but he'd been improved at all by the Illawarra treatment? Did you see him better after he came back than before?.....He – yes, he had more movement but when you look at it now, it didn't give him enough movement or – what – to be able to do his work and to keep going at the pace that you'd have to do to stay, you know, in the work force and be productive.
During 1987, did you notice whether he deteriorated or stayed at the same level as he was after he came back from Illawarra?.....No, he's got worse.
What things have got worse?.....Well he's not as – if you use the word mobile, he's not as mobile now as he was when he came home......And when he came home he had this list of exercises to do and swimming and everything and he said 'I've got to do those things because if I don't they tell me I'll go right back' and so he continued – he does the exercises every morning and night and then he went to the swimming and the others three times a week and he did those religiously every week. He never stopped – I suppose they were skills that Illawarra taught him to handle how he was and he never stopped doing them and I mean sometimes if he had to go to Lifestyle to do swimming on Saturday that might be all he'd do, he'd get up, he'd go, he'd do that and he come home and he'd lie down for the rest of the day but he kept on at trying to keep fit.
Have you observed Pat in and around the home since he came back from Illawarra?.....Yes.
When he came back did he make any complaints of pain to you initially?.....Yes, he – when he came back from Illawarra he wasn't completely pain free, he – –
Well did you talk about the pain?.....Yes.
And do you talk about it now or say in August of this year, through the year, did he refer about pain to you?.....Yes.
And you said that it had got worse, how do you know it's got worse? What things have you seen to make you make that statement?.....Well I can tell by how he looks how bad the pain is. I can tell by how he walks, how he gets up. When I wake up I can tell by the way he's breathing whether his pain is bad, he's had a bad night, or whatever, and sometimes he's got up to go to work and he hasn't really got himself up – straightened up properly and he's been in a lot of pain and he's taken himself off to the office.
During 1987 was there any discussion between you and him about retirement until August of this year?.....No, apart from the fact that he was convinced he would make it. The discussion was 'I'll get there, I'll make it'".
The plaintiff currently needs to take Digesics for back pain and when he suffers from "spasms", he takes Ducene. These are provided on prescriptions given by Dr Mcleod. However, he tries to avoid taking analgesics because he has been advised to this effect by doctors. He resorts to his TENS machine as his primary source of relief and if that does not work effectively he goes to the tablets. From time to time he also experiences a sciatic type of pain which can radiate through the buttocks and behind the thigh, knee and calf of both legs. He finds that vibrations experienced when travelling in cars, buses or lifts, tend to act as a trigger for pain in the back. Although he does not get headaches as a regular feature of his disability, both he and his wife gave evidence that his sleep is frequently disturbed.
Until Christmas 1985, he and his wife slept in separate beds but since then they have resumed an active, if more subdued, sex life. Before the accident, he took an active interest in his childrens' sporting activities and enjoyed playing soccer and cricket with his son. He does not do this now. His social life with his wife is restricted because he finds it distressing to sit for lengthy periods in theatres or restaurants. Similarly, if visiting friends he finds a need to stand or lie on the floor from time to time to ease his back. His capacity for lawn mowing is limited to the "easy bits" but even this seems to aggravate his back condition if he works for a quarter to half an hour. Pruning and painting are now beyond him.
I proceed now to assess damages under the various heads claimed.
First and foremost is the question of pain, suffering and loss of amenities. As already mentioned, the plaintiff is quite severely handicapped in his day to day living. He endures a significant level of pain and it is apparent that he will continue to do so. Activities which he previously enjoyed are now restricted. He is now middle aged and is to be compensated for the past 4½ years and the remainder of his life. In my assessment, $30,000 should be allowed under this head.
Secondly, there is the question of economic loss. As my findings have previously indicated, I am of opinion that the plaintiff's decision to retire was taken only after a conscientious effort to continue working. It is plain from the case that the pension now payable to him may not be taken into account in reduction of his entitlement to damages for lost earning capacity. Whilst I do not think that the plaintiff's earning capacity has been totally destroyed, it is plain from the evidence of Mr Roach and Mr Dwyer that opportunities do not currently exist within the Department of Main Roads to utilize the plaintiff's talents on a part time or reduced hours basis. It is also clear that he will have difficulties in the present economic climate in securing appropriate employment in other spheres to suit his physical and intellectual capacities. Rather than assessing damages on the basis that a specific percentage of earning capacity remains, I think it more appropriate to allow a somewhat higher percentage than usual for contingencies to take account of the small degree of earning capacity which the plaintiff retains.
According to the plaintiff's evidence he was accepted by the Retirement Benefits Fund Board as partially and permanently incapacitated in September 1987 and admitted to an interim pension to be reviewed after 6 months. He declined to accept this classification and sought a review. However, that review had not been finalized by the time his case came on for hearing in this Court.
The plaintiff was off work (presumably on sick leave or in receipt of workers' compensation payments) in September 1987 and remained so until returning to work apparently to "give it another go" on 10 November 1987. However he was unable to continue beyond 11.00am that day. He has not worked since. Although no specific evidence was given as to the date on which his salary with the Department of Main Roads ceased to be payable, I think it should be accepted for the purpose of estimating the plaintiff's economic loss that this occurred on 10 November 1987.
I note that Exhibit P1 which contains particulars of the plaintiff's earnings, supports a nett weekly salary of $358.00 only, rather than $361.65 as claimed. Loss of earning capacity is claimed for 17 years. As the plaintiff will be 49 on 30 March 1988, this appears to be an overstatement of the extent of the loss even if the 10 November 1987 is taken as the starting point for assessment. My view is that the loss should be calculated over 167 12 years only as follows (using Table 3 on page 544 of Luntz "Assessment of Damages" 2nd Edition) 630.5 x 358 = $225,7l9.00, less 20% for contingencies = $180,575.20, which I would round off to $180,000. I have chosen to use Luntz's Table 3 as a basis for calculation rather than Table 2 because Table 3 was used by the plaintiff's counsel in the calculations he placed before me. In reducing the figure of $225,719.00 by 20% for contingencies, I have been aware that Table 3 already contains an adverse allowance for mortality.
I have taken into account the plaintiff's stated ambition to apply for Mr Roach's job if it were to become vacant, but the prospects of this and any increased salary payable were not explored in the evidence, and this factor can accordingly only have a limited and generalized effect.
As is usual in this type of case, a detailed claim for so called Griffiths v Kerkemeyer loss has been included.
My learned brother Nettlefold J recently referred to the "clear and specific guidance" as to the principles underlying and the scope of a Griffiths v Kerkemeyer claim to be found in Hodges v Frost (1984) 53 ALR 373 at 378 and following (see Matcham v Dodge B38/1987).
I am mindful of these guidelines in approaching the present claim and I am also mindful of the lack of real precision that almost inevitably accompanies an estimate of time spent on the performance of repetitive minor tasks and services by a wife or husband for an injured spouse in a domestic setting. However it was specifically agreed by defence counsel (page 84 of the transcript, Day 1) that $6.00 per hour is an appropriate rate for the calculation of this component of the claim. I do not propose to make a detailed analysis of each component of the claim for past services. I am satisfied, generally speaking, that the services claimed were provided. I think it would be reasonable to allow $4,000 to date for Mrs Dowd's services and I will allow an extra $600 under sub paragraph (b), $85 under sub paragraph (c), and $115 under sub paragraph (d). A sum of $800 has been claimed at the foot of sub paragraph (d) but I read this not as a claim for expense already incurred, but rather as a claim for the estimated future cost of painting, pruning and lawn mowing. I think this is reasonable and I allow the item. I also accept that the plaintiff's wife continues to render him services necessitated by the accident amounting to about 1¼ hours per week. I think this is likely to continue throughout their joint lives. I propose to allow $6,000 for this component of the claim. I am not satisfied that the additional costs of running the Austin 1800 as claimed in paragraph 10 are reasonable. It is plain that a decision not to sell this vehicle after it was donated by Mrs Dowd's father resulted from her inability to sell it for a sufficient price, rather than a decision to keep it as a means of providing Mr Dowd with more comfortable motorized transport. Though no doubt very convenient for this purpose, I doubt very much whether it, or a similar vehicle, would have been purchased to provide this amenity if it had not been handed over as a gift.
The claim for travelling in paragraph 11 has been agreed and is accordingly allowed as claimed at $398.84.
I am satisfied upon the basis of the plaintiff's evidence that the additional cost of heating oil was incurred reasonably to alleviate his symptoms and should be allowed as claimed at $450.00.
As to future medical costs specified in paragraph 13 of the claim, the cost of the TENS machine (which I accept as a reasonably necessary device for the alleviating of continuing symptoms) and its running and maintenance costs have not been strictly proved. Exhibit P2 goes part of the way, but the frequent necessity for replacement has not been demonstrated by the evidence. However, this is a frequent item in damages claims of this kind and after some initial hesitation, I am prepared to allow a sum of $3,000 under sub paragraph (a).
No doubt the plaintiff will continue to undertake physical exercise during the foreseeable future in the same way that he has done in the past, and this will obviously involve him in expense of about $600 per annum. I also accept that he will have to seek medical and manipulative help from time to time. I have no reason to suppose that this will be as extensive as the combined claim of $1,500 per annum suggests however. In my view, an allowance in excess of $600 per annum for medical and para medical treatment would be over–generous. I think it would be proper to allow an amount of $20 per week to age 65. Under sub paragraph (b) I therefore allow $13,440.
In summary therefore, the plaintiff's damages will be assessed as follows:
1. Pain, suffering and loss of amenities $ 30,000.00
2. Future economic loss $ 180,000.00
3. Past "Griffiths v Kerkemeyer"
(a) $4,000
(b) $ 600
(c) $ 85
(d) $ 115
$4,800 $ 4,800.00
4. Future "Griffiths v. Kerkemeyer" $ 6,800.00
5. Travelling $ 398.84
6. Heating $ 450.00
7. Future "medical" costs $ 16,440.00
$238,888.84
There will be judgment in the plaintiff's favour for $238,888.84.
tasinLaw edit: The word “pension” appears twice (also at the end of page 7) in the judgment.
Press ESC to exit Popup
0
1
0