Hussein v Pozzolanic Bulk Carriers (Queensland) Pty Ltd
[2001] QDC 195
•28th August 2001
DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Hussein v. Pozzolanic Bulk Carriers (Queensland) Pty Ltd & Ors [2001] QDC 195 PARTIES: MINH HUSSEIN Plaintiff
and
POZZOLANIC BULK CARRIERS (QUEENSLAND) PTY LTD (ACN 009 788 998) First Defendant
and
TIMOTHY PAUL BURCHMANN Second Defendant
and
COMMERCIAL UNION ASSURANCE COMPANY OF AUSTRALIA LIMITED (ACN 004 478 371)
Third DefendantFILE NO/S: 4191 of 1998 DIVISION: Civil PROCEEDING: Trial ORIGINATING COURT: District Court DELIVERED ON: 28th August 2001 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 20th, 21st August 2001 JUDGE: Judge Forde ORDER: Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $113,331.96. CATCHWORDS: Personal injuries – neck – whiplash – economic loss – partnership losses claimed by plaintiff – lost capacity
Husher v. Husher (1999) 73 ALJR 1414
COUNSEL: Mr C Newton for the plaintiff
Mr S Lumb for the defendantsSOLICITORS: Crouch & Lyndon for the plaintiff
Phillips Fox for the defendants
Introduction
The plaintiff, Minh Hussein, sues for personal injuries which she suffered in a motor vehicle accident on 23rd October 1995. The Toyota Tarago van in which she was travelling was hit from behind by an articulated truck, owned by the first defendant and driven by the second defendant. The third defendant was at all material times the licensed insurer of the said truck. Liability has been admitted.
The said truck hit the said Toyota Tarago with considerable force. The plaintiff was a passenger. The seat on which she was sitting had runners which were bent as a result of the collision. She suffered a whiplash type of injury to the neck and shoulders and tenderness to the stomach area which was caused by the seat belt. It is also pleaded that the said collision caused an aggravation of or was the cause of a lower back condition. The plaintiff was seven (7) months pregnant at the time of the said collision. The plaintiff was born on the 19th March, 1961 in Vietnam. She had had two children prior to the accident. They were aged 3 and 7 years. She had done two years of a commerce degree but had not completed it. She had worked in a bank for some years as a teller and doing other duties.
Nature of the Medical Evidence
After the accident, the plaintiff attended her general practitioner Dr. Le and a physiotherapist on two occasions before her baby was born (Exhibit 1). After her symptoms did not improve, Dr. Le referred the plaintiff to Dr. Curtis on 14th November, 1995. By February, 1996, the prognosis according to Dr. Le was good. Her baby was born on 2nd December, 1995. In evidence the plaintiff said that she did not further attend physiotherapy as Dr. Curtis, an orthopaedic specialist, advised her not to. Dr. Curtis saw the plaintiff in November, 1995, about a month after the accident (Ex.2). He stated that at that time she was working as a full time shop assistant. In fact she was running her own business called “Thanh The Asian Foods”. Dr. Curtis diagnosed a soft tissue strain to her neck which “should ultimately settle with rest in a collar, use of heat…”. Dr. Curtis advised that she not pursue physiotherapy “for the moment” as it appeared to be aggravating her symptoms.
In a subsequent report dated 18th September, 1996 (Ex.4), Dr. Curtis stated that after 3 weeks, the plaintiff returned to work starting for half a day at a time but was unable to resume her full pre-accident workload. Pain continued in the neck area. Numbness in her left hand had settled. As she was breastfeeding, the neck problem aggravated her symptoms. In fact she breastfed for 12 months as she had with her other children. Dr. Curtis also referred to the fact that she suffered episodes of low back pain which had been present since the accident. He referred to the types of activities which aggravated her lower back which included stooping forward and lifting her baby. Dr. Curtis said that she was unable to resume her pre-accident workload because of her inability to tolerate sustained lifting or standing. In other words, one is able to infer that the lower back problem was also a factor in this respect. Grip strength was 7 kg on the left and 9 kg on the right. He observed from X rays that the plaintiff had mild disc space narrowing at the C5/6 and C6/7 levels with a small amount of osteophyte formation. Dr. Curtis assessed the plaintiff with a 7.5% impairment of the whole person as a result of her injury. He believed, at that stage, that she would require domestic assistance for up to 3 hours a week but that she could expect further improvement over the next 6 to 12 months. He assessed permanent curtailment of her occupational capacity at 25%. At p.7 of Ex.4 he states:
“However, long term complications are not anticipated and there is no indication for surgical treatment. She is also aware of some low back pain, present ever since the accident. However, in view of her state of pregnancy at that time, one cannot wholly attribute such symptoms to the accident, although they produce an additional 2.5% impairment of the whole person.”
When Dr. Curtis saw the plaintiff some years later in May, 2000, her symptoms had continued. She was able to carry out lighter duties including occasional shelf filling tasks and banking. She continued to require domestic assistance doing the heavier household tasks. Grip strength was 9 kg on the left and 14kg on the right. There was a full range of movements on all planes. There was no motor weakness or muscle wasting. There was some restriction of the lateral flexion and rotation to the right and was assessed at 5% impairment of the whole person. He stated (Ex. 5) that the plaintiff would require domestic assistance for a further 2 to 3 years. It should be mentioned that Dr. Boys was told in 1999 that the plaintiff was “now capable of doing all routine housework, albeit with some discomfort with heavier cleaning activities…’.(Ex.17 p.2). Dr. Curtis recommended various conservative forms of treatment including muscle-conditioning exercises. She was wearing a surgical collar daily for periods of time, but avoided it whilst serving in the shop.
In the report dated 19th June, 2001 (Ex.6), Dr. Curtis referred to the fact that the plaintiff had been involved in another motor vehicle accident in December, 2000. She suffered an injury to her cervical spine and lumbar region and was admitted to hospital overnight. Her symptoms to the neck and back pain persisted. She was taking regular analgesics and anti-inflammatory medication. She was using heat pack and was doing stretching exercises. He confirmed that the plaintiff was doing lighter duties such as serving at the counter and some clerical and administrative duties including banking and ordering stock. The requirement for domestic assistance continued. Grip strength was 11kg on the left and 14kg on the right. Her condition remained largely unchanged from the previous visit in 2000. He assessed the impairment at 5% of the whole person due to the cervical spine. He stated that “she has low back pain in addition, which I have previously felt caused no additional impairment.” In fact in his previous report (Ex.4), he assessed the “additional 2.5% impairment of the whole person”. He believed that the recent accident had “temporarily aggravated” her back pain symptoms. Dr. Curtis stated that “there remains permanent curtailment of her recreational activities” (Ex.6 p.6). In Ex.4 p.3, he stated “these have been unaffected”. The conflicting nature of the evidence of Dr Curtis causes one to place less weight on his overall evidence.
In evidence, Dr. Curtis stated that there was unlikely to be any improvement in the plaintiff’s condition given the lapse of time. He stated that her employability was reduced substantially as it prevents her from doing any lifting or overhead work such as shelf filling. He stated that it also reduced the time that she could spend at the keyboard and attending to clerical duties. In cross-examination, Dr. Curtis was asked about the various results from grip strength tests. He agreed that given the results from the left hand indicated that in the absence of any further injury, that she was not applying the maximum strength that she was capable. In other words, she was not being forthright. Also, she did not report any headaches to him, although at trial she gave extensive evidence of same. She blamed it on stress. Dr. Curtis was asked about the statement made by the plaintiff to Dr. Boys on 18th August, 1999 about domestic activities. Basically, the plaintiff stated that she could do all tasks but did experience some discomfort with the heavier tasks. Her statement to Dr. Curtis led him to believe that she required domestic assistance of 3-4 hours per week. Dr. Curtis conceded that the plaintiff could serve customers but not “standing, serving for sustained periods of hours at a time” without being uncomfortable and it would be difficult for her to continue. He conceded that she could put occasional items onto shelves but “to constantly and repetitively lift from a carton at floor level to above head level would be extremely difficult for her and would precipitate exacerbation of neck pain”(71.8-10). Given what the plaintiff told Dr. Boys, Dr. Curtis accepted that the plaintiff could do all of the tasks she complained about in respect of her work activities but doing them continuously in a work environment “would be harder for her to perform”. In relation to domestic duties, Dr. Curtis said that the plaintiff would have difficulty with the vacuuming, cleaning bathrooms and shower recesses and loading shopping (72.5-10).
Dr. Boys in his report of 18th August, 1999 (Ex.17), commented that radiographs of the plaintiff’s neck (25.3.96) indicated cervical discal degeneration. That is not disputed by Dr. Curtis. Dr. Boys confirmed that there was no specific treatment but that the plaintiff did use a hot pack from time to time. Dr. Boys recorded that in relation to the low back pain, the plaintiff could recall no low back pain subsequent to the motor vehicle accident and similarly, no back pain until after her child’s birth in December, 1995. This version was confirmed by the plaintiff in evidence (48.20-40). She was given a lumbar support at the hospital after the birth. He believed that the plaintiff’s lower back pain was associated with the lumbo-sacral junction and pelvis reflecting the effects of her pregnancy and subsequent vaginal delivery. I accept his evidence particularly having regard to the history of the symptoms as stated by the plaintiff. Dr. Boys noted that after a heavy day’s work, the plaintiff experienced low back pain. Her sitting, standing and walking capacities were unimpaired. Dr. Boys noted that cervical movements were normal with a slight restriction of lateral flexion to the right side with a complaint of some strain. Dr. Curtis found more limitation than this.
Dr. Boys was of the opinion that the plaintiff suffered from postural neck strain as a consequence of osteoarthritic degenerative change of the cervical spine. He stated that a musculoligamentous injury to the neck and possible aggravation of underlying constitutional osteoarthritic degenerative change was consistent with the type of injury which the plaintiff suffered in the accident. He assessed an impairment to the neck of 2-4% bodily function. Dr. Boys believed that her neck condition has not given rise to any significant work incapacity. He recommended a regular programme of muscle conditioning exercises to strengthen her neck and shoulder muscles. Dr. Boys stated that the plaintiff had suffered no major structural derangement to the neck. She had some spasm for 3-4 weeks. Generally, I accept the evidence of Dr. Boys. It is certainly consistent with the earlier views of Dr. Curtis when he first examined the plaintiff. The subsequent history relied upon by Dr. Curtis as related by the plaintiff is unreliable in some respects. This will be discussed later in these reasons.
Mrs. Coles, occupational therapist, seems to have considered the lower back pain and the neck pain as causing the disability (Ex. 9 p.3;p.9 para 3.1). She believed that the plaintiff’s upper limb capacities were sufficient for light tasks within easy reach. Many of the findings of Mrs. Coles rely on the reliability of the plaintiff’s evidence. I am not satisfied that the plaintiff has been forthright in relating her symptoms as they relate to the subject accident.
Plaintiff’s evidence
The plaintiff has exaggerated her neck symptoms. I am satisfied that she was being less than candid with the court on the following issues:
a. the plaintiff told Dr. Curtis on 27th November, 1995, that she was working as a full time shop assistant (Ex.2). The chronology (Ex.19) sets out the time that she had off work after the accident. The plaintiff gave evidence that after the birth of her child she attempted to go back to work for a couple of weeks but was unable to continue (96.34-42). She stated that “I probably come in one or two hours a day to – check and see how things goes but I haven’t been working since”. However, she failed to state that she did in fact work thereafter. Ex.22 (second sheet) outlines the days she took off work thereafter in February, April and March. It is clear that she was referring to the time that she had off work. Even Mr. Hussein stated she worked 20 hours per week.
b. the chronology (Ex.19) which the plaintiff confirmed as correct states that she attended physiotherapy some seven times as at 4th November, 1997. In evidence, the plaintiff confirmed that she did not return to the physiotherapist after 1996 (34.20). She stated that Dr. Curtis advised her not to. In fact, he advised her not to initially as it was not assisting. He certainly gave no evidence that after 1996 he advised her not to.
c. The plaintiff stated (25.50) that the purchasers of the business approached her. She told Ms Coles that she had it on the market for some six months before the contract was signed. (Ex.9 p.7).
d. The discrepancy in the grip strength tests is consistent with the plaintiff failing to be genuine in her efforts to establish her disability.
e. The plaintiff did take time off work to go to swimming and gym prior to the accident. In the twelve (12) months December, 1995, she was breastfeeding. To say that she worked seven days a week for up to 80 hours is stretching the truth (16.50-17.5). She used to get the assistance from employees from her husband’s business next door when needed. (91.44) They would come across for 4-5 hours per day if necessary. She and her husband used to alternate in each store (Ex.9 p.7)
f. The plaintiff stated that after the accident two part time employees were employed by “Thanh Asian Foods” because she was unable to do the work (24.38). In cross-examination, the plaintiff conceded that no further employees were employed, but that they would come from the other store (97.4).
I am satisfied that having heard the plaintiff’s evidence:
a. that she has suffered a musculoligamentous injury to her neck as a result of the motor vehicle accident on 23rd October, 1995.
b. that given her pre-existing degenerative condition in the cervical region that the accident has accelerated her pre-existing condition
c. that her lower back condition is unrelated to the motor vehicle accident which occurred in October, 1995.
d. that her inability to perform her previous tasks at work after the accident was as a result of both her neck condition and her lower back condition.
e. That she had recovered substantially from her condition within months after the accident but I am satisfied that her ongoing disability is in the range of 2-4%. I accept the evidence of Dr. Boys (138.30-139.5).
f. That her inability to perform her heavier tasks at work and home after the birth of her child in December, 1995 was as a result of her back condition. The neck injury was of less significance as time passed. I reject her evidence that the neck was the main problem. (34.1-10).
g. That apart from reaching to load up shelves with items and excessive repetitive work, the plaintiff is capable of performing her duties as a shop proprietor.
h. That her inability to cope at home and work after a couple of months was due in part to the birth of her child and the demands placed upon the plaintiff particularly after the children were taken out of day care.
i. That in time she would have been involved more in a managerial role.
Nature of Partnership
The plaintiff was the manager of “Thanh The Asian Foods”. She said that it was one of the largest in Brisbane. Her husband ran “Foodtown” which was situated next to each other. The plaintiff and Mr. Hussein owned the building and “Foodtown” paid rent to “Thanh The Asian Foods” for the use of part of the building. The plaintiff and Mr. Hussein were the partners of both businesses and shared the profits of same as well as the rental income. The property from which they ran their business was purchased in October, 1992. The Asian Foods business was established in February, 1984. The “Foodtown” business was purchased with the building in October, 1992. Prior to the accident each of the parties would spend most of their time in their respective businesses. On or about 22nd February, 1995, the parties signed a contract for the sale of “Thanh The Asian Foods” for $78,000.00. The tenant was to lease the store as well. The plaintiff had intended to build up the “Foodtown” store and allow it to realise its full potential (57.1).
The plaintiff had intended to further her studies if the business sold. In fact, that contract fell through and so after the accident, in April, 1996, the parties merged the two businesses. As a result, the plaintiff spends less time at work. To what extent this is due to the subject accident is problematical. Apart from the time at the store, the plaintiff does go to the markets to do buying for the store. The parties changed from a partnership to a proprietary company in July, 1998, but for present purposes it is not a relevant consideration. The defence do not contend otherwise.
Although there is extensive accounting evidence about the losses suffered by the partnership and supposedly as a result of the plaintiff’s inability to contribute, the proper approach to be adopted is that to be found in Husher v. Husher (1999) 73 ALJR 1414 at 1419 para.23:
“deciding what value is to be ascribed to the loss of future earning capacity of an injured plaintiff requires close attention to the facts of each case. The task is not one to be undertaken by seeking to classify cases as concerning “sole traders” or “Partnerships” or “wage-earners” or “trading trusts”, and then attempting to deduce some rule of general application to all cases falling within the classification thus devised. Rather the inquiry is about what could the plaintiff have done in the workforce but for the accident and what sum of money would the plaintiff have had at his or her disposal. Only when those inquiries are pursued can a judgment be made about what capital sum to allow as damages for the impairment of the plaintiff’s earning capacity. In doing so, regard must be had, of course, to all those contingencies of life that might reasonably be expected to affect the course of events in the future.”
Pain and Suffering and Loss of Amenities
The plaintiff is now 40 years of age. She suffered a whiplash type of injury to her neck. Her injury was complicated by lower back pain which occurred after the birth of her baby in December, 1995, some two months after the accident. The plaintiff did do gym and swimming prior to the accident in order to keep fit. Since the accident, she goes only occasionally. She also had the care of her third child. She was assisted by her parents who came to live with her after the accident for seven months. They provided general assistance for her in coping immediately after the accident. They also returned subsequently to assist (Ex.20). The plaintiff did go back to work soon after the birth of her child. She had difficulty doing various tasks and so would have suffered additional pain carrying out her tasks. She was unable to do the heavier work and she cut back on her hours. She was able to seek assistance from the employees of “Foodtown” in carrying out her tasks. Given that the plaintiff did continue with her work and perhaps suffered more than others who are not required to do so, an additional sum should be allowed for that aspect. The effects upon the plaintiff of her neck injury will be felt at least in relation to the heavier tasks at work and domestic chores for the next couple of years.
Counsel for the plaintiff provided several cases in his later written submissions. His original submissions are Exhibit 28A and the later written submissions Exhibit 28B. I am satisfied that the plaintiff is entitled to general damages of $25,000.00. Interest on the sum of $15,000.00 at 2% for 5.8 years is allowed viz. $1,740.00.
Economic Loss
It would be wrong to approach this assessment by concentrating on the earning capacity of the partnership. If Mr. Hussein had, for example, increased his efforts to make the partnership of both businesses as profitable after the accident, then the plaintiff may have suffered no actual loss. It was held in Husher v Husher op. cit. that:
“when assessing damages for future earning capacity, it is necessary to identify both the capacity which has been lost and the economic consequences which would probably flow from that loss. Only then is it possible to assess that sum that would put a plaintiff in the same position he or she would have been in had the injury not been sustained. Evidence of past earning capacity is often important in assessing damages for loss of future earning capacity, but it is not determinative.” (p.1414)
The following matters ought to be considered in this regard:
a. The plaintiff and her husband had attempted to sell the “Thanh The Asian Foods” business prior to the accident.
b. The plaintiff wanted to continue her studies and develop the “Foodtown” business.
c. Her share of the profits for 1993-4 was $62,391.00 Gross. For the year in which the accident occurred it was $56,733.00 Gross.(Ex.11 schedule 3.2).
d. In the following year, it was $27,846 Gross. However, this was because the accountant allowed the plaintiff only 33% of the work contributed to the partnership and secondly, there was a fall off in Total Adjusted Earnings by some $30,000.00.
e. There were also new shops competing for the Asian foods business including one at Sunnybank and “one or two” at Darra (93.50).
f. The plaintiff dispensed with day care and was spending more time at home.
The causes of why the plaintiff did not continue to contribute as she had to the business have been discussed. To allow only 33% contribution assumes that the subject accident was the only cause of her inability to continue full time and that the loss applied to both businesses from 1st July, 1995. Those assumptions are rejected. There were other factors including the additional child. The plaintiff was still capable of performing most tasks subject to the limitations discussed. There was no guarantee that she would have continued in the business in the short term. She was still able to go to the markets and do the purchasing. She may have, in time, re-educated herself, developed the potential of the business, taken over totally the books of account to avoid the heavier work. Part-time assistance would have allowed her to do so in the interim. I do not accept the plaintiff’s reasons as to why the business fell off after the accident (24.48). In fact, she was still able to purchase stock and shoplifting could not explain the loss. For example, the net profit of both business were 1993-4 $76,191, 1994-5 $63,761. In 1995-6 it was $60,664 (Ex..13 schedule 5). Contrary to her evidence (26.8) the losses were not that high.
Past economic loss
Counsel for the plaintiff has conceded that comparing the pre-accident income of the partnership with the post- accident income is somewhat unreal given the various factors to which reference has been made. The assessment of the accountant in Exhibit 13 paras. 11.3 and 11.4 and schedule 6.2 calculated the plaintiff’s pre-trial lost income to 19th August, 2001 at $108,94.00. This was based on the cost of one employee. I do not accept that a full time employee was necessary to replace the lost capacity referable to the injury suffered in the subject accident. However, allowing a part-time person up until the present time seems to be reasonable. I allow the sum of $30.160.00. It reflects a loss of $100.00 per week for 5.8 years. This figure allows for the time off in the early period together with the need for assistance from other employees and the added contribution by Mr. Hussein in running the merged businesses. It is reflective of the plaintiff’s lost capacity. It also takes into account the other discounting factors discussed previously including the plaintiff’s greater involvement in the rental property at 5 Railway Parade, Darra, and her pre-accident desire to return to university study. Interest on the sum of $30,160.00 at 5% for 5.8 years is $8,746.00.
Future Economic Loss
In his report of 30th May, 2000, Dr. Curtis said that the plaintiff’s impairment of her domestic activities would continue for 2-3 years. Although Dr. Curtis revised his opinion, it is consistent with that of Dr. Boys whose evidence I have accepted overall. The same limitations which the plaintiff suffered at home also applies, I find, in relation to the physical nature of her work in the business. A global sum would properly compensate the plaintiff in this regard. I have also had regard to the discounting factors referred to previously in arriving at a global figure of $20,000. The concurrent lower back problem has led to this moderate award. This award recognises that for some tasks at work she would need assistance and is reflective of a lost capacity. Her husband continues in the partnership business and the plaintiff continues to contribute but to a lesser extent. Her ability to re-train and take a more sedentary role in the business may mean that she does more property and financial management. Consistent with Dr. Curtis’s evidence (Ex. 5 p.5), “further progression of the previously noted degenerative changes of her neck may be expected in future years”. This is another factor which I have taken into account in finding that the plaintiff was unlikely to have continued working the long hours which she did and carrying out the physical tasks which she did prior to the accident.
Past Care
Reference has been made to the ongoing assistance that the plaintiff required at home. Mrs. Pham, the plaintiff’s mother, had intended to come up for a month after the birth of the third child. Mrs. Pham and her late husband travelled up the day after the accident to help. On their first visit, they stayed until May, 1996. I am satisfied that they and the plaintiff’s sister, Bich Lien Pham, assisted the plaintiff doing household tasks and providing transport for the children. Exhibit 20 sets out the details. There is also a claim for a cleaning lady. Exhibit 21 sets out that from 23rd October, 1995 to August, 2000, the sum of $40.00 per week was paid up to August, 2000. The type of cleaning which she did was different to the tasks done by the family. However, it was not just the neck injury which prevented the plaintiff from doing the tasks around the home. As discussed, the lower back injury continues to be a problem. There is also the fact that the plaintiff no longer sends the children to childcare because of the help she received and the fact that she spent less time at work. The number of hours of care claimed in Ex. 20 is 3863 hours. Due to what is an arithmetical error the total should be 2741 from the date of the accident to 31st October, 1997. In his reports of 18th September, 1996 (Ex.4 p4) and 19th June, 2001 (Ex.6 p.6), Dr. Curtis talks of domestic care being engaged 3-4 hours per week. In the earlier report he spoke of :
“She has difficulty with all household tasks, in particular vacuuming, and occasionally has assistance from her mother. She also has to engage domestic assistance for up to 3 hours a week.”
That evidence does not sit comfortably with the claim made. One has to discount this figure for the following reasons:
a. The lower back problem was a contributing factor
b. A figure of up to $250.00 per week was saved in child care (46.50)
from the birth of the third child (52.20).
c. The plaintiff was capable of performing most of the tasks.
d. The additional child would have added to the household tasks in any
event.
This assessment requires a robust approach. I assess the past care figure at $10,000.00. This is based upon three hours per week over nearly six years at the rate of $12.00 per hour average. I allow interest at the rate of 5% for 5.8 years. This amounts to $2,902.00.
Future Care
As discussed previously, the plaintiff may require ongoing assistance for a couple of years. I allow 3 hours per week for the next two years at the rate of $14.50 per hour. The total under this head is $4524.00.
Special Damages
A perusal of Exhibit 21 reveals that the following items are not controversial:
Mater Hospital $100.00
Physiotherapists 234.00
Doctors 561.75
Travel for treatment 139.05
Aids 151.50
An amount has been allowed for neck braces (5). Given no claim for the future, no further allowance is made. In relation to pharmaceuticals and medicated oils, given that the plaintiff was suffering both back and neck pain, only half the claim is allowed. That is a total of $543.66. Finally, there is a claim for cleaning expenses from October, 1995 to August, 2001, a period of 5.8 years. Mrs. Nguyen gave evidence that she has worked about 4 hours per week during the period from November, 1995 to October, 1998. She was paid $30-40 per week. Her duties included cleaning the kitchen, bathroom, vacuuming the floors in the house and mopping the floors when necessary. It also included dusting. Given the findings that the plaintiff could do all tasks except that the harder tasks caused her discomfort, the total of this claim cannot be allowed. Any claim for the future has been taken into account in future care. I allow the sum of $6,000.00 under this head. The additional allowance for special damages will be :
Pharmaceuticals etc. $543.66
Cleaning 6,000.00
The total amount for special damages will be $7,729.96. The medical expenses were bulk-billed (38.54). I allow interest on the sum of $7,000.00 for a period of 5.8 years at 5%. This amounts to $2,030.00.
Future expenses
There is a claim for future expenses at $3.00 per week for 10 years. This refers, I believe, to pharmaceutical expenses. In view of the findings to date including likely degenerative change and the other symptoms such as low back pain, the sum of $500.00 only is allowed.
Summary of Quantum
Pain and suffering and loss of amenities $25,000.00
Interest 1,740.00
Past economic loss 30,160.00
Interest. 8,746.00
Future economic loss 20,000.00
Past care 10,000.00
Interest 2,902.00
Future care 4,524.00
Special Damages 7,729.96
Interest 2,030.00
Future expenses 500.00
$113,331.96
Orders
Judgment for the Plaintiff against the third defendant in the sum of $113,331.96.
It is further ordered that the third defendant do pay the plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the action including reserve costs, if any, to be assessed on the standard scale.
0