Howlett v Electrolytic Zinc Company of Australasia Ltd
[1987] TASSC 127
•22 December 1987
Serial No B57/1987
List "B"
COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
CITATION: Howlett v Electrolytic Zinc Company of Australasia Ltd [1987] TASSC 127; B57/1987
PARTIES: HOWLETT, Anthony
v
ELECTROLYTIC ZINC COMPANY OF AUSTRALASIA LTD
FILE NO/S: 1262/1985
DELIVERED ON: 22 December 1987
JUDGMENT OF: Cox J
Judgment Number: B57/1987
Number of paragraphs: 29
Serial No B57/1987
List "B"
File No 1262/1985
ANTHONY HOWLETT
v ELECTROLYTIC ZINC COMPANY OF AUSTRALASIA LTD
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COX J
22 December 1987
This is an assessment of damages for personal injury sustained by the plaintiff on the 15 October 1984. The plaintiff on that day was employed in the leach division of the defendant company as a shift labourer. In the course of his work his left arm, just above the elbow, became entangled between a conveyor belt and a roller and he was lifted bodily from the ground striking his head several times on an iron walkway which ran above his working area. The belt gouged a deep cut in his upper arm and transected the ulnar nerve, while he sustained a 15 centimetre laceration to the scalp which needed to be shaved, cleansed thoroughly of dirt and lead residue and then sutured. In the process of striking his head, it appears that it was flexed to the right and he suffered some injuries to his cervical spine. The precise mechanics of this injury are not clear, but I find that his neck complaints, the extent of which has been the subject of some controversy, did result from the accident.
The laceration to the head was the source of some embarrassment to him until his hair grew back, but otherwise he made a complete recovery from it.
Immediately following the accident he was rushed to the Royal Hobart Hospital where surgeon, Mr J M Carney, found in addition to the scalp laceration a deep abrasion on the medial aspect of his left arm above the elbow measuring 15 x 7 centimetres. This defect which was also covered with dirt and lead residue involved the ulnar nerve which was completely transected. There was extensive skin loss together with underlying muscle. This required debridement on three separate occasions and the defect was eventually grafted. The nerve was repaired at the time although it was felt that due to lead residue contamination the repair might not be successful. He remained an in–patient until the 30 October 1984. The pain of the initial injury was excruciating and his sojourn in hospital was very painful. The arm gave him a lot of trouble as did the donor graft site on his leg. The application of new dressings and the removal of old ones caused him considerable discomfort. For some three weeks after his discharge he had to return daily for dressings, being transported there by his father and thereafter for a similar period his mother daily changed his dressings at home. In this early period of about two months his parents gave him a good deal of assistance which, in accordance with the principles laid down in Griffiths v Kerkemeyer (1977) 139 CLR 161, can properly be described as services which it was reasonably necessary to provide and which it would have been reasonably necessary to provide at cost. The defendant should not have the benefit of provision of these gratuitous services. The plaintiff's father happened to be on holiday at the time and devoted much of his three weeks' leave ministering to his son, while his mother provided in addition to nursing assistance, help in dressing the plaintiff, bathing him, cutting up his food and similar forms of assistance.
On the 1 March 1985 Mr Carney in a written report summarised the position thus, so far as the left arm was concerned:–
"I have reviewed him on several occasions and the initial evidence of nerve recovery did not continue and in fact this function has regressed.
The current situation shows that his scalp defect is well healed and there is no significant physical or cosmetic deformity. On the medial aspect of his arm the grafted area is represented by indented soft tissue defect which lies just above the medial epicondyle. Here there is loss of both muscle, skin and fatty tissue. The region is hollowed out and presents a noticeable defect which is surrounded by a rim of red scar tissue. The depth of the wound is covered by a skin graft which shows evidence of contracture.
Examination of his hand and forearm shows that his grip is diminished when compared with the opposite side. There are the usual features of a complete ulnar nerve transection, namely absent intrinsic muscles impaired ability to form a manipulative grip between thumb, index and ring finger. There is absent sensation of half the ring finger and the entire little finger on both the volar and dorsal aspect. The ulnar area of his hand bears a scar where he has burnt himself due to lack of sensation in this area.
It will be necessary for the ulnar nerve to be re–explored and re–anastomosed resecting the fibrotic area. This would also require transfer of soft tissue cover from elsewhere on his body. Should the resected region of the ulnar nerve prove too wide to approximate by direct suture then a nerve graft technique will be necessary.
It is my intention to explore the nerve with a view to repair. At the same time the defect will be filled with a flap taken from his left forearm containing the necessary soft tissue cover. Should the ulnar nerve require grafting I will use the sensory branch of the radial nerve to bridge the gap."
On the 27 March 1985 Mr Carney performed a second operation designed to provide cover for the exposed nerve and to effect what he described as "an interpositional vascularised nerve graft". He removed portion of the left forearm together with the radial nerve, divided it and interposed that into the gap between the ends of the ulnar nerve, resecting a type of neuroma formation at the point where the nerve had been damaged and interposing the nerve graft between the two ends of the ulnar nerve. Although Mr Carney had hoped for improved motor and sensory recovery, there was no evidence of sensory recovery and only 30% reinnervation of the muscle. The comparative lack of success of this procedure was put down by Mr Carney to the possibility that there might have been an injury to the ulnar nerve at a higher level, or that there had been some toxic damage to the nerve by the direct effects of the lead residue on the initial injury. This second operation hospitalised the plaintiff until the 10 April 1985 and his admission was painful, involving a graft from the forearm to the upper arm and one from the leg to the forearm.
In May 1985 the plaintiff returned to work for the defendant company. He was given a job washing cars. After only a few days, while wringing out a chamois, his forearm became painful and "began to swell". He was seen by the doctor at the defendant company's works and referred back to Mr Carney who placed the arm in a sling and put the plaintiff off work again. By this time the plaintiff's general pain in the hand and upper arm was becoming more intense and his consumption of digesics, which he had taken on prescription since the accident, increased to a level of about five to six per day (it was to rise to about eight per day by the time of the trial). He attended the Douglas Parker Rehabilitation Centre in mid 1985 for two to three months, but failed to improve. In November 1985 the plaintiff was again cleared for light duties and given work "off siding to a clerical position" in the leach division. In addition to some limited written work he had to hand out protective clothing. He found that job and other roughly similar jobs unrewarding and much of his time for the following 12 months was spent attending his general practitioner, his specialist and physiotherapist, it being understood that he might come and go as he felt necessary so long as he kept his employer informed. He kept a record of hours worked in that period and it discloses that of a possible 2,008 hours available for work he in fact worked only 796 hours, or approximately 40%. He has not resumed work since the 28 November 1986, although he continues to be employed by the company and receives workers' compensation payments, notwithstanding his failure to attend for work.
In April 1986 the plaintiff was referred by Mr Carney to Mrs Brugler for physiotherapy in an attempt to improve the function of his wrist, forearm and hand. He had a very weak grip and no function in the small muscles in his hand. He was complaining of pain and ache from the upper arm down to the forearm and into the hand and he had no sensation along the distribution of the ulnar nerve in the forearm and hand. He gained no benefit from the strengthening exercises conducted, but they were persisted with in the hope that nerve regeneration might yet occur. As time progressed it became apparent to Mrs Brugler that the pain in the plaintiff's arm was an increasing problem to him. She claimed to have found that by stretching the nerve roots from the neck, as they emerge from the neck and run down the arm, she could reproduce some of his arm pain. She concluded that the brachial plexus nerve roots were tight and she started a programme of trying to stretch and mobilise them. By June 1986 she claims to have detected extreme tenderness and muscle spasm about the joint segments of his neck and restriction in movement in the 3rd, 4th and 5th cervical vertebrae. Initially he responded well to gentle mobilisation of these joints, but over the following 16 months the treatment had to be changed so as to be more intrusive. Since May 1987 she found his joint stiffness more intense and more difficult to relieve, requiring manipulation rather than a gentle mobilising technique.
If the plaintiff repeatedly moves his neck through range and does some stretches it produces an audible clicking of the joint and his range frees. This technique of self manipulation the plaintiff frequently employs, sometimes getting the relief he seeks, but on other occasions doing so without success. It is a pronounced movement which attracts attention and one of his neighbours and a family friend described it as giving him the appearance of being "spastic". It is likely to cause him some continued embarrassment. He also suffers frequently from headaches when he has cervical pain and stiffness.
In order to prevent curling of his fingers his physiotherapist prepared a splint which he has been advised to wear for the rest of his life, at least three to four times per week for a period of two to three hours. Although this is not painful and can be done of an evening when he is not otherwise engaged, it will be a permanent nuisance to say the least.
In December 1986 Mr Carney referred the plaintiff to neurosurgeon, Mr G P Duffy, because the absence of return of function was causing him concern and the plaintiff was complaining of pain in the arm which Mr Carney described as a neuralgic or causalgic pain and which he thought might have emanated from damage at a higher level. On two occasions Mr Duffy injected local anaesthetic into the nerve above the level of repair, and on the second occasion this produced a significant amount of relief to the pain. In view of this fact Mr Carney felt that to persist with what was a surgical exercise in an endeavour to return function to a nerve which had not responded over a lengthy period was not wise and that the relief of pain was more important. He thought it would be worthwhile sacrificing the previous surgical endeavours on the nerve in an attempt to eradicate pain, and in January 1987 operated to divide his previous anastomosis, and taking the stump of the ulnar nerve turned it backwards and buried it in a muscle at a higher level. For a brief period of time the plaintiff had some pain relief, but subsequently he again developed pain there.
In March 1987 the plaintiff expressed a desire to travel to Queensland to see what effects a warmer climate might have. Mr Carney recommended that he do so and is still of the view that he would be better off there. Of the plaintiff's current functional limitations in the left arm Mr Carney said:–
"... he lacks power grip in that arm, that is he would find holding a hammer as in a gripping sense difficult. He has no flexion power, or he has limited flexion power in the little finger and the adjacent ring finger. The other half of that muscle which does that flexion is supplied by the medial nerve and that normally is the one which bends the thumb, the index and the middle finger so that if you were to hit with a hammer or in particular if the hammer were to be pulled backwards it would tend to undo his ring and little fingers. That's one limitation. The second thing is that because the fine muscles of the hand are largely innervated by the ulnar nerve, the only small muscle in the hand which is not significantly innervated by the ulnar nerve is the one which lifts the thumb across to the little finger and that should still be intact. So that he would have difficulty in doing up nuts and bolts with that hand, particularly if he can't – no, just nuts and bolts, doing up buttons, tying shoe laces, anything which involves the tripod manipulative grip ...".
It should also be noted that the lack of sensation in much of the plaintiff's left hand exposes him to the risk of injury from burns or other trauma not immediately recognised by him, and in fact he has already sustained some burns without detecting them at the time. His little finger is insensitive and sits out from his other fingers. Mr Carney said of this that if it kept getting in the way or getting burnt or injured, or became likely to interfere with the remaining function of the plaintiff's hand, he would suggest amputation at the knuckle joint.
The pain experienced by the plaintiff in his arm has three sources. At the site of the original injury there is pain from the neuroma. Prior to Mr Carney's operation on the neuroma in January 1987 this could on occasion produce exquisite pain, but almost complete relief was procured after the burial of the nerve stump. Unfortunately this pain can recur and the plaintiff now complains of recurrence of it, although not to the same extent. I think it reasonable to assume that the plaintiff will continue to suffer some degree of pain at this site indefinitely. I would not anticipate it being of any great intensity.
On his lower arm, especially at the site of the radial nerve excision, he experiences considerable causalgic pain due in part to the severed ulnar nerve and also to a probable lesion higher up in the brachial plexus. Mr Carney could suggest no immediate surgical treatment to relieve this kind of pain and was of the view that as it is exacerbated by cold stimuli, removal to a warmer climate was a desirable course. The only options to him were therapeutic treatment, like moving to a warmer place and masking the pain with analgesics. Mr Duffy was able to reduce the level of causalgic pain by the second of his lignocaine injections which were carried out more for diagnostic purposes than as treatment and in fact led to Mr Carney's decision to operate on the neuroma. When Mr Duffy examined the plaintiff again in July 1987 he found evidence of the ulnar nerve paralysis in the arm and that the sensitivity he had first found was still present (that is the causalgic pain), but was "nowhere near as marked as it had been", while the pain in relation to the neuroma was very much better. He did not consider the causalgic pain was likely to get any better and did not recommend surgery at this stage. However, he expressed the view that should the causalgic pain get worse, further treatment aimed at the sympathetic nervous system, either by way of further injections or even of a sympathectomy might be indicated. This he hoped would cure the causalgic pain. The cost of such an operation, inclusive of surgeon's and anaesthetist's fees and hospital charges would be in the order of $2,815. The defendant conceded that this treatment was reasonable and desirable and that an allowance should be made for it. Even then however Mr Duffy cautioned that the causalgic pain might recur at a later stage.
Mr Duffy could give no explanation for the plaintiff's claim to frequent swelling of his lower arm on sudden exertion. He acknowledged that as the plaintiff had damaged tissues in that area, jarring could cause a degree of pain there, but he could not explain why it should swell. Nevertheless, I accept the plaintiff's evidence that extra exertion can cause pain which he perceives as being associated with swelling, a phenomenon which Mr Carney explained as having a physiological basis, although swelling would not be apparent to the observer.
A significant part of the plaintiff's claim relates to the problems he is having in his neck. There seems no doubt he did strike his head forcibly at the time of the accident and his head may have been wrenched to the side in the process. Furthermore, he complained of pain in the neck on admission to the hospital. However, neck pain scarcely rated a mention by his medical advisers for several years thereafter. His physiotherapist observed it as a growing problem from about June 1986, but despite a change of general practitioners later that year when Dr Riddoch took over his management, and despite the frequency of his consultations, it was not until February 1987 that the plaintiff complained of neck pain to Dr Riddoch and not until June 1987 that Dr Riddoch referred him to an orthopaedic specialist, Mr Hilton Francis.
Mr Francis saw the plaintiff on the 22 July 1987. Having taken a history from the plaintiff and examining him Mr Francis concluded:–
"This history and a clinical assessment would suggest an instability of his apophyseal joint C45 on the left. The mechanism of injury would be consistent with this. He now appears to be developing secondary changes with increasing severity. The answers are therefore either to denervate the joint, excise the joint or fuse that mobility segment. The first step should be a diagnostic block at the C45 apophyseal joint and if this is not totally successful then a block at C34 and 45. If this gives excellent relief then I would suggest proceeding to cryotherapy to denervate the joints. This will leave some minor risk of developing a Charcot type joint in the future but this will need to be watched radiologically. I would be reluctant to proceed to anymore definitive surgery at this stage.
Unfortunately the prognosis is for increasing problems at this level in his neck. He will probably require a fusion procedure or excision of the joint later in life depending upon results of subsequent investigations. At this stage I feel we should be looking at pain blocking."
In his oral evidence Mr Francis confirmed that the headaches described to him by the plaintiff were consistent with the kind of injury he diagnosed. Having regard to the plaintiff's age Mr Francis said he would be very reluctant to suggest surgical fusion, but he did recommend cryotherapy which involves inserting a needle into the facet joint and denervating it with material having a very low freezing point. In the long term he anticipated quite advanced osteo–arthritis in the neck.
Mr Duffy did not share Mr Francis' assessment of the plaintiff's neck condition and could find no evidence of instability of the apophyseal joints in the x–rays shown to him. He did not consider cryotherapy an appropriate treatment in the circumstances. Mr Duffy had not been alerted to any neck problem until July 1987 when he was asked to specifically examine this alleged problem. He found some limitation to the neck rotation to the right and some limitation of flexion extension of the neck. He accepted this as resultant upon the injury, but felt that there was insufficient evidence justifying any particular diagnosis or surgical treatment. Matters to be explored would include use of a cervical collar, consideration of manipulation of the neck under general anaesthetic together with injections of steroids into the neck and, if symptoms persisted, surgical intervention by way of a discectomy and fusion, the cost of which would be in the order of $3,215. In the absence of more concrete evidence Mr Duffy was not prepared to give any prognosis as a probability commenting only that on a statistical basis he would expect there to be some significant improvement in five years. Mr W. B. Law, who was called by the defendant, also thought Mr Francis' diagnosis and prognosis too pessimistic. He regarded surgical intervention as a remote possibility and said it could not be even contemplated without more sophisticated investigations of the neck such as discography or myelography.
I am by no means persuaded that the plaintiff's neck condition is as severe as Mr Francis and Mrs Brugler consider it to be, or that invasive treatment is warranted for the foreseeable future. It is undoubtedly troublesome and no doubt contributes to the overall discomfort which causes the plaintiff shortness of temper, lack of sleep and is a condition which reduces his ability to engage in work. That it may deteriorate into a more disabling condition requiring expensive and painful surgical procedures is a factor which must be taken into account in evaluating the effect of the accident upon the plaintiff's condition, but I do not think on the evidence that it has been established to have the dimensions attributed to it by Mr Francis, and I prefer the evidence of Mr Duffy and Mr Law.
The plaintiff was born on the 24 June 1966 and is therefore still only 21 years of age. He is the only child of his parents and has lived with them all his life. He was educated to grade 10 at Claremont High School, attaining level 2 passes. He left at the age of 15 and immediately procured a job as a groundsman for the Royal Agricultural Society, staying there for about three years. He had additional part time jobs in the racing industry, putting horses and dogs in stalls. After other jobs of short duration he commenced work for the defendant company only about two months before the accident. He had a normal childhood, was a polite and pleasant neighbour, engaged in the usual youthful sports and activities and achieved some success as a participant in drag racing. His father was a qualified motor mechanic and the plaintiff picked up some expertise with engines, although he obtained no formal qualifications. He had an easy personality and shortly before the accident had entered into serious negotiations for employment as an assistant manager of the Red Lion Tavern in Hobart. A claim was originally made for economic loss in respect of this venture, but it was clear from the evidence of the proprietor that circumstances, apart from those of the plaintiff, changed so that the prospects of his engaging in that occupation disappeared and the claim was abandoned on the trial. Nevertheless, the evidence casts some light on the plaintiff's personality and initiative and is not irrelevant in considering his future prospects.
The accident obviously has seriously affected his enjoyment of life. He has put on a considerable amount of weight due to lack of activity, his arm is badly disfigured, he has become very short tempered and intolerant of his parents, he suffers pain and sleeplessness, he has a low self image and he is very frustrated with his lot. He can no longer engage in sports and strenuous activities, his social outings are curtailed and he has become somewhat preoccupied with himself and his treatment.
In March 1987 he went to Queensland for about a month taking his girlfriend with him. He went there on doctor's advice. He was agreeably surprised at the amelioration of his symptoms and was able to substantially reduce his hitherto heavy intake of medication. On his return to Hobart his condition deteriorated. He made up his mind that the only sensible course for him to adopt was to go to live in Queensland when this case is finalised. For this reason he declined to give proper consideration to certain offers of employment the defendant company made to him. One can understand and sympathise with his desire to return to a pain reduced environment, but he would be most unwise to assume that the warmer climate alone was the panacea which improved his condition and that a return to that environment will ensure a permanent and substantial cure of his ailments. The medical witnesses could not identify any specific reason for his reduction of symptoms, although they all recognised that warmer weather can contribute to one's wellbeing, but there were doubtless several psychological factors which played a part in improving his condition in that brief sojourn.
The defendant company has made several suggestions for his re–employment with it. A variety of different jobs was discussed at the trial and two senior executives made it clear that the company was prepared to tailor the jobs to take account of the plaintiff's disabilities. In virtually each job there were some aspects which the plaintiff might have difficulty in coping with, but I accept the genuineness of the defendant company's assurances that the job could be moulded to take advantage of what the plaintiff is capable of doing and to avoid stressful work with which he could not adequately cope. Unless the plaintiff became severely disabled from any effective work, his services would be retained. The company however would employ him on the basis that, if he were absent from work due to disabilities for which this court has compensated him by way of damages, his absence would be treated on a leave without pay basis. Likewise he would have to meet his own medical, pharmaceutical and para–medical expenses. On the other hand, the defendant company is ready to retrain him to engage in useful and rewarding work, paying for any necessary tuition and giving him leave with pay to undergo it. I accept that the defendant company is a caring employer which would see the pragmatic value in honouring its commitments and I have full confidence that it will do so.
In my opinion the plaintiff is capable of engaging in several of the jobs offered by the defendant (subject to the adjustments the latter is prepared to make). He is not lacking in intelligence and could in my view adapt to more clerical work despite his disinclination towards it. The environment may not be as idyllic as that of Queensland, but is not so harsh that the plaintiff's condition is likely to be thereby exacerbated. He has the capacity to do not only clerical work but light stores work, some driving and generally to do the work which Mr Law was shown in his inspection of the premises. It was agreed that his present rate of pay, had he not sustained the accident, would have been $330 per week nett and that I should use this as a base figure. Of the eight jobs canvassed in exhibit D3, the mean nett wage is $300, so that if he took on some such work he could lose up to $80 per week at worst and if he procured a job paying the average of such wages he would lose approximately $30 per week. In addition he will probably have some time off due to bouts of pain and the necessity to undergo medical and hospital treatment and some physiotherapy, although much of the latter can be organised on an out of hours' basis. In my opinion it would be reasonable to anticipate that on an average he would be able to work about 80% of normal working time. If that be so, he would lose a further $60 per week. Using these figures for guidance, it will be seen that his future economic loss of $90 per week to age 65, according to the 3% tables, is $110,160.
It was submitted that the plaintiff was really incapable of any worthwhile work and that he should leave Tasmania and establish himself in Queensland, being compensated on the basis of a total loss of the ability to earn. I cannot accept that this is so. On the open market in Tasmania he has more limited potential for employment. But having regard to its commitment to rehabilitate him and to its understandable commercial interest in doing so, there is a clear opportunity for the plaintiff to engage in paid work with the defendant. Even were he to go to Queensland and remain there permanently because of the amelioration of his symptoms, he would in my opinion still have the potential for earning income, a potential which would no doubt increase with the diminution of his symptoms. In my view, subject to an adjustment I will make in respect of his claim for future pharmaceutical allowances, his economic loss can be fairly compensated by an award of damages of $115,000.
As to damages for past and future pain and suffering and loss of the amenities of life, including cosmetic defects, I award $40,000. Some allowance for the cost of possible future surgery should also be made. The operations foreshadowed are the sympathectomy ($2,815), the discectomy ($3,215), the amputation of the little finger ($675) and cryotherapy ($675). It is improbable he will have them all. He may have none and it is hard to say when any will be undergone. I will allow $3,500.
The plaintiff will continue to require analgesics, anti–inflammatories and sleeping tablets. His intake of prescription tablets to date has been vast. For the future, if he continues to use digesics at the rate of eight per day, the tables show that a figure of $16,755 would be required to meet the cost. Likewise, three anti–inflammatories such as Voltaren or Dolobid per day would cost approximately $5,560, while sleeping tablets (one Normoson per day) would cost about $900. A continuation of medication at this level is likely so long as the plaintiff remains in Tasmania. If he goes to Queensland and experiences an amelioration of his symptoms and there is a reduction in the number of tablets he needs to consume, there will be a saving and the award under this head would have been too generous. But if he does abandon the security of the job the defendant offers him he may incur a greater weekly loss than the sum of $90 on which I have based my calculation and the saving on medication may off–set this. Accordingly I allow $23,215 for the cost of future medication. I also allow one visit per fortnight for treatment by his general practitioner at $21.50 per consultation, giving a figure of $14,308 which I likewise allow without discount.
For the foreseeable future some physiotherapy will be required. It was submitted that an allowance of $42 for two visits per week indefinitely was appropriate as the neck was likely to get worse rather than better. However, I do not view the neck problems experienced by the plaintiff as pessimistically as some of his advisers whose opinions I have canvassed and I think an allowance of one visit per week for the next five years, without discount, will meet the plaintiff's needs for physiotherapy hereafter. That produces a figure of $4,830.
Finally, an allowance should be made in accordance with the principles acknowledged in Griffiths v Kerkemeyer (supra). In addition to the time spent during the early days of convalescence there is a continuing claim for services rendered by the plaintiff's parents, namely mechanical work by his father on his car and work around the home by his mother. As to the former, the plaintiff's father is a mechanic by trade and enjoys his workshop activities. Such work as he does on the plaintiff's vehicle is not in my opinion within the purview of those principles. His mother assists by getting breakfast and lunch for the plaintiff when he feels poorly and by making his bed. In addition the plaintiff said that there were many little tasks which took only a few minutes each which he had not bothered to record and his mother almost daily massaged his neck with a cream. All of these services in my view are part of the assistance it is to be expected will be provided within the family circle and are not such as would ordinarily be procured at a cost. Many were already provided before the accident and although the time spent in preparing breakfast and making the bed each day was calculated at half an hour, that is clearly a gross, if unconscious, exaggeration by the plaintiff. I think it reasonable to make an allowance of say $500 for the early period of convalescence, but any further allowance is not justified.
The plaintiff will have judgment against the defendant for $201,353, made up as follows:–
Pain and suffering, loss of amenities
of life etc $40,000.00
Future economic loss 115,000.00
Future surgical treatment 3,500.00
Future medical treatment 14,308.00
Future pharmaceutical needs 23,215.00
Future physiotherapy 4,830.00
Griffiths v Kerkemeyer allowance 500.00
$201,353.00
0
1
0