Koning v Fritsch - [2012] WADC 76

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: KONING -v- FRITSCH [2012] WADC 76

CORAM: CURTHOYS DCJ

HEARD: 30 APRIL - 4 MAY 2012

DELIVERED : 5 JUNE 2012

FILE NO/S: CIV 2193 of 2009

BETWEEN: JOHANNES KONING
Plaintiff
AND
WERNER FRITSCH
Defendant

Catchwords:

Right Knee injury, Compensation for loss of labour contribution to building

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Damages of $228,600 awarded to plaintiff

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: Mr K S Pratt
Defendant: Mr A J Power

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: Hoffmans Barristers & Solicitors
Defendant: Brian C Sierakowski

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Tunstill v State Electricity Commission (WA) [1965] WAR 50

CURTHOYS DCJ: Mr Koning suffered an injury to his right knee in a traffic collision on 13 October 2006. Liability is not in issue. This judgment assesses the damages.
At the time of the collision Mr Koning was about to commence the construction of two two-storey units behind a house he owned in Chester Street, Fremantle. He intended to carry out the majority of that work himself. The central issue in this case is whether, as Mr Koning contends, the injury to his knee would have prevented him carrying out the construction, or, as the defendant contends, it would only have slowed the rate of construction. I find that the injury would have prevented him carrying out the construction and that damages should be assessed on that basis.
Mr Koning was born in 1953. He completed school to year 10. He then studied for a certificate in architectural drafting. He completed all but one unit of that course.
Mr Koning's working life has been in building. His primary skill is as a carpenter but he is a jack of all trades. He undertook extensions and renovations of houses. Mr Seeber and Mr Dundas, both architects, gave evidence that Mr Koning had carried out work for them of a high standard.
In 1994 Mr Koning purchased a property at Margaret River. He submitted plans to the local council and received building approval. From 1996 to 2004 he erected two factory units. Apart from some assistance in laying the concrete pad for the factory units and from a plumber and an electrician, he personally completed all the works associated with the construction of the factory units. The work included steel work construction, limestone block walls, rendering, galvanised iron roofing and cladding, windows, plumbing, electrical, tongue and groove floors and outside hard areas. The nature of the work is apparent from exhibit 2, photos 1 – 19. Much of that work involved heavy labour.
The factory unit took about nine years to construct. The long period of time is explained by two factors. Firstly, Mr Koning was not working on the site full‑time because he was primarily working in Fremantle on extensions and renovations. Secondly, he underwent periodic treatment for cancer from about 2000 to 2003. The cancer treatment, which primarily consisted of chemotherapy, significantly impacted on his ability to carry out extensions and renovations and to work on the factory units.
The property was subdivided and he sold one of the factory units in 2005. He rents the other unit.
Following the sale of the Margaret River factory unit Mr Koning decided to develop Chester Street, a property he had purchased some years previously. There was a house on the property. The house was rented for about $275 per week. The net income was about $10,000 per year (exhibit 3, page 136). The property consisted of two long narrow lots. The existing house straddled the two lots. In October/November 2005 Mr Koning drew up plans for the development of Chester Street. He submitted the plans to the City of Fremantle on 23 November 2005. Planning consent was granted on 4 April 2006. The planning was subject to a number of conditions including the amalgamation of the two existing lots (exhibit 1).
Although the planning approval was subject to a number of conditions Mr Towson, the principal building surveyor for the City of Fremantle, gave evidence that the conditions imposed were standard conditions that were not difficult to comply with (ts 237). The most difficult stage in obtaining approval for a development is planning approval. Once planning approval is granted the building approval in essence requires compliance with the Building Council of Australia Standards (ts 239). I am satisfied that building approval would have been granted.
Essentially, the plans involved the retention of the existing house on the property and the construction of a two bedroom unit and a one bedroom unit. Mr Koning planned to live in the one bedroom unit, to lease out the two bedroom unit and to continue to lease the existing house. Mr Koning gave evidence that he planned to undertake the majority of the work to construct the two bedroom unit and the one bedroom unit. Mr Koning intended to work on the development full‑time. He expected to finish the development in late 2009.
Mr Koning had already commenced the work and had purchased, or obtained some, though not all, (ts 160) of the materials that were necessary (exhibit 1, photos 20 ‑ 40). Most of the materials that had been obtained were second‑hand and Mr Koning had commenced to clean and prepare some of those materials.
Amongst other things, Mr Koning had dug a service trench for the electricity and plumbing and had built some retaining walls.
The nature of the building to be undertaken at Chester Street was in substance very similar to the work undertaken in erecting the factory units at Margaret River.
I am satisfied that, but for the collision, Mr Koning would have personally undertaken and completed the great majority of the work in constructing the units at Chester Street. I base that on his experience, the nature of the work and that he had successfully completed the two factory units in Margaret River. The defendant did not challenge his ability to complete the construction of the units but for the collision.
Mr Koning was living in the loft of the garage attached to the house at the time of the collision. He planned to live there until the one bedroom unit was available for him to move into. Mr Koning accessed the loft by a ladder. He used an existing outdoor laundry and bathroom/toilet at the rear of the property as his kitchen, laundry and bathroom/toilet. Whilst Mr Koning's living conditions were primitive, I am satisfied that he did intend to live there for the duration of the development.
The only substantial issue raised by the defendant about whether, but for the collision, the units would have been completed was whether Mr Koning would have had sufficient finance to complete the development.
At the time of the collision Mr Koning did not know what it would cost to complete the development. He accepted that he needed to acquire more materials.
Evidence of the estimated commercial cost of building the two units and the external works was given by Mr McEvoy, a quantity surveyor (exhibit 6). Mr McEvoy based his assessment on the plans submitted for planning approval (exhibit 1). Because Mr McEvoy's evidence was based on planning approval plans, rather than working drawings, it was very approximate. His evidence provides no more than a rough guide to the costs (ts 220 - 227).
Mr McEvoy's estimate of the total construction cost for new materials was $468,500. This includes 7 1/2% for a builder's margin (ts 217). His estimate of the labour component was 35% of the total cost. His estimate of the material cost was 60% of the total cost = $281,500. The cost estimate was based on 2012 figures. The appropriate time at which to assess the cost of materials is mid 2008 – on the basis that it is the mid point in the development. Applying the index contained in Rawlinson's, the cost in mid 2008 would have been about $260,000. This has to be further discounted by the builder's allowance of 7 1/2% to about $240,000. Mr Koning would also have had to pay the costs of an electrician and a plumber with some discount for what he could have contributed to the labour costs by assisting the plumber and electrician, about $20,000.
Mr Koning gave evidence that he had spent only $21,403 on materials (schedule of damages for pecuniary loss 4.2.1) and that he would have spent only a further $18,104 (schedule of damages for pecuniary loss 4.2.2) to complete the development. Mr Koning did not keep any receipts and his figures were based on 'ringing around' to obtain 2012 costs. The evidence of Mr McEvoy is a more reliable indicator of the commercial cost of materials. Mr Koning's evidence was too optimistic and not based on sufficient facts.
Mr Koning's financial capacity was limited. At the time of the accident he had about $25,000 in the bank. He was subsequently able to borrow $150,000. Although Mr Koning did not lead evidence of his assets and liabilities and his discovery was inadequate, I accept that he was able to borrow $150,000, although that was the limit of his borrowing capacity (ts 169). He spent $50,000 of what he borrowed on living expenses so he would have had $100,000 available.
As a consequence of the injuries sustained in the collision Mr Koning asked the tenants of the existing house to vacate and moved from the loft into the house. If he had not moved into the house he would have had an additional income of $10,000 per year or about $30,000.
The funds Mr Koning had available were in the order of $155,000 ($25,000 + $100,000 + $30,000). At first glance $155,000 falls well short of the $260,000 required to complete the development.
However, in assessing the funds Mr Koning would have required to complete the development I take into account the fact that he was an able scrounger. He already obtained materials for the development second hand from salvage yards and from advertisements in the Quokka. For example, he obtained 8,500 bricks for free. The nature of the materials he had obtained is evident from exhibit 1, photographs 20 - 40. Mr Koning gave evidence that he had most of the timber (ts 98), too many bricks and insufficient window frames. I do not have sufficient evidence to form a firm view as to how much of the necessary materials Mr Koning had obtained. Based on the photographs and Mr Koning's evidence, at a very rough guess, I would estimate that Mr Koning had obtained about half the materials necessary.
Despite the difficulties in making as assessment, on balance, I am satisfied that $155,000 would have been more than sufficient for Mr Koning to complete the development.
I am satisfied that, but for the collision, Mr Koning would have completed the development in late 2009/early 2010. Had he done so Mr Koning would have had a stream of rental income from the remaining factory unit at Margaret River, the existing residence and the two bedroom unit at Chester Street. He would have lived in the one bedroom unit at Chester Street.

The collision

On 13 October 2006 Mr Koning was riding his small motor bike when the defendant turned his car right across Mr Koning's path. There was a collision and Mr Koning's right leg was sandwiched between the fuel tank of his motor bike and the car. Mr Koning was thrown over the bonnet of the car.

Post collision injuries and treatment

Mr Koning was taken by ambulance to Fremantle Hospital where he was examined, x-rayed and a laceration to his right knee was sutured. He was prescribed analgesics. He re‑presented to the Fremantle Hospital 48 hours later because of pain and swelling of his right knee. He was given crutches. Mr Koning found using a walking stick was more convenient and replaced the crutches about a week or so after the collision.
He was advised to continue taking the analgesics and referred to the care of his own general practitioner. He was dissatisfied with that general practitioner and on 20 November first saw Dr Middleton. Dr Middleton recommended a continuation of analgesics. He initially prescribed Panadeine forte and subsequently Tramal. Mr Koning was referred to physiotherapy. There was no significant improvement in his right knee and Dr Middleton referred him to Dr Buelow.
Dr Buelow first saw him on 22 November 2006. Mr Koning had an MRI scan of his right knee. On 29 November Dr Buelow made a diagnosis of a full thickness tear of the posterior cruciate ligament, a tear of the medial collateral ligament injury, an undisplaced fracture of the interior two thirds of the tibial eminence and an intra‑articular fracture of the anterior aspect of the lateral tibial plateau (exhibit 5, page 4).
The fractures were treated conservatively with weight bearing relief by use of a walking stick and physiotherapy.
Once the fractures had healed, Dr Buelow carried out a posterior cruciate ligament graft on 20 February 2007 at St John of God Hospital Murdoch. Post operatively Mr Koning was mobilised with crutches and a Richard's splint on his right knee protecting the posterior cruciate ligament repair (exhibit 5, page 7). A fixed splint was continued for six weeks and then a range of motion brace for a further six weeks. Subsequent to this Mr Koning had physiotherapy and gradually resumed full weight bearing on the knee. Mr Koning has muscle wasting of the right quadriceps of 1.5 cm.
In March 2007 Mr Koning was using Panadol for pain occasionally (exhibit 5, page 8).
Mr. Koning suffered a serious right knee injury as a result of the collision.

The effect of the injuries

There is relatively little dispute between the doctors about the nature of the injuries. The major ongoing problem is the right knee. The real issue that arises is whether the injuries would have prevented Mr Koning from completing the development.
Although Mr Koning suffered neck and back pain following the collision neither the back nor the neck injury would have prevented him completing the development. This pain has largely, if not completely, resolved (Dr Home exhibit 5, page25, exhibit 5, page 32, Dr Alexeeff exhibit 9, page 21).
Surveillance DVDs were shown to the doctors. Following the collision Mr Koning has carried out mechanical repairs to his cars and has constructed several gophers using bath tubs.
There is a dispute between Dr Buelow, Mr Koning's treating doctor, and Dr Alexeeff and Dr Kagi, orthopaedic surgeons, who reviewed Mr Koning on behalf of the defendant. Each of the doctors is well qualified and experienced.
When Dr Buelow reviewed Mr Koning on 9 January 2009 he noted that there was ongoing laxity in Mr Koning's right knee. Dr Buelow concluded that this would make it hard for him to work on uneven ground, lift heavy objects and climb ladders, roofs and stairs in a working capacity. Building and carpentry could therefore be difficult, or impossible, for him (exhibit 5, page 14). Dr Buelow reviewed Mr Koning again on 27 February 2012. He repeated his conclusion of 9 January 2009 (exhibit 5, page 17).
Mr Koning was reviewed by Dr Alexeeff on 13 December 2011 (exhibit 9, page 8). Dr Alexeeff thought that perhaps the degree of symptoms reported exceeded objective findings (exhibit 9, page 24). Dr Alexeeff's conclusion was that Mr Koning's work capacity was unaffected and that he would be able to work as a carpenter and continue the development of the two units at his property in South Fremantle. The surveillance DVDs showed Mr Koning get in and out of two cars. On the basis of his examination and the DVDs Dr Alexeeff concluded that Mr Koning would be able to crouch or squat. He concluded that Mr Koning may well be able to undertake duties associated with the remaining building of the units including carpentry, laying bricks, pushing the wheelbarrow, shovelling, digging, lifting heavy weights, climbing ladders, preparing cement and carrying items when climbing ladders.
Dr Alexeeff concluded that for occupational health and safety reasons he doubted very much, given the history of significant right knee injury, that Mr Koning would present a suitable risk for competing for employment in the open workforce.
Mr Koning was reviewed by Dr Kagi on 24 October 2007 (exhibit 10). Dr Kagi did not find any inconsistencies between his examination and Mr Koning's description of his symptoms. Dr Kagi concluded that Mr Koning was restricted by his injuries from competing in the open workforce because of his inability to lift and work on rough or on uneven ground and to climb ladders in a work capacity. He could not be expected to lift weights heavier than 5 ‑ 10 kg.
Dr Kagi concluded that Mr Koning has a permanent disability amounting to 20% of the right knee. Dr Kagi's opinion on this point is confirmed by Dr Home (exhibit 5, page 27) and Dr Buelow (exhibit 5, page 15). I accept that Mr Koning has a permanent disability of the right knee amounting to 20%.
Dr Kagi saw Mr Koning again on 29 April 2009 (exhibit 10). Prior to that review Dr Kagi reviewed the surveillance DVDs. Dr Kagi concluded that Mr Koning was not incapacitated from his pre‑accident occupation and was able to lift at least 10 kg. The only activity he might not be able to manage in respect of his pre‑accident occupation is climbing ladders. It appears that Dr Kagi reached this conclusion largely based on the basis of seeing the DVDs and that Mr Koning presented with well work soiled fingers as a result of tinkering on his cars and gophers. Dr Kagi did not know how long or for what periods Mr Koning had worked on his cars and gophers (ts 303).
On balance, I prefer the evidence of Dr Buelow as to Mr Koning's work capacity. He is Mr Koning's treating specialist he reviewed him on numerous occasions over a long period of time. I am fortified in that view by the opinions of Dr Home and Dr Marsden.
Dr Home, an occupational physician, saw Mr Koning for review on 5 October 2009 (exhibit 5, page 19). Dr Home concluded that Mr Koning could not return to the scope of physical duties required to work as a carpenter/builder. In his view Mr Koning may be able to undertake lighter building tasks, primarily fixing duties, working between shoulder and knee height. It would be necessary for him to delegate the heavier work including work requiring ground level activities and higher fixing work to others.
Dr Home concluded that Mr Koning's knee condition allowed him to negotiate ladders provided he has use of both hands on the ladder to support his weight whilst lifting his knee from the rung. It is not safe for him to undertake climbing of ladders in a work capacity relying upon one hand and his right leg for support, such as when he is required to carry equipment by hand. He agreed with Dr Kagi's assessment of a 20% assessment of functional disability.
Dr Home saw Mr Koning again on 15 April 2011 (exhibit 3, page 29) and his views were unchanged despite seeing the DVDs.
Mr Koning was reviewed by Dr Marsden, an occupational physician, on 18 October 2007 on behalf of the defendant. Dr Marsden concluded that Mr Koning was then unfit for practical manual labouring work for the time being with considerable discomfort and instability above the right knee which is persisting (exhibit 11, page 51). He reviewed Mr Koning again in early January 2012 (exhibit 11, page 59). Dr Marsden concluded that the injury and the consequent operative repair management to the right knee had left Mr Koning with a persistently unstable knee and that his presentation was consistent with that instability. He concluded that the symptomatology arising would affect his ability to work as a carpenter in a competitive workforce permanently. In his opinion Mr Koning had some long‑term degenerative changes in his left knee which affects his work capacity. In Dr Marsden's opinion Mr Koning has the capacity to slowly work on his property development as outlined in the particulars of damages but not on a commercially competitive basis. He could not return to work as a carpenter or any tradesman or labouring capacity in the competitive workforce permanently directly due to the direct long‑term effects of the accident on his right knee and associated structures. He could not climb ladders, scaffolds or work in a competitive workplace.

Mr Koning's evidence is that he would not even consider continuing with the development because the physical work of the development is really out of his realm. Although Mr Koning was a garrulous witness and there were some inconsistencies in his evidence I accept that overall he sought to tell the truth and to give an honest account of the impact of the injury on his work capacity.
The defendant argued that Mr Koning would have been able to complete the development. He would simply have proceeded at a much slower speed and therefore that he should only be compensated for a delay in the development. Whatever the theoretical possibility of Mr Koning completing the development, the reality is that the injury to his right knee made it impractical for him to complete the development. Much of the building work involves fairly heavy labouring, working at heights, going up and down ladders in a working capacity, lifting heavy objects and working work below the knee.
The fact that Mr Koning may have been able to complete some tasks working two or three hours per day and with physical assistance from third parties does not mean that in any practical sense he could have completed the development (Dr Home ts 208). He has been able to undertake work on his cars and gophers and to do various welding and grinding activities on his work bench. However, there is a vast difference between completing a development and doing work at his own pace and taking rests when necessary. He has used a stool to carry out mechanical work on his cars. There is a significant difference between carrying out work that is essentially a hobby and completing a development. Mr Koning has endeavoured to keep living life within the constraints imposed by his injuries to his right knee. I do not draw any adverse inference from the fact that he worked on his cars and the gophers, however soiled his hands may have been.
Mr Koning did carry out some light paving in December 2008 as a result of which he injured his lower back. The paving was conducted at a caravan park in the hills but it was only a small area of paving. I do not believe that the fact that he may have carried out a small area of paving impacts on my assessment of his general ability to carry out construction work. The fact that he might have been able to carry out minor tasks, such as cleaning bricks and sanding wood, does not lead to the conclusion that he was fit to complete the development even at a slower rate.
Although Mr Koning may have been able to carry out welding of the steel frame, the balance of the work - getting the steel into position, lifting up the base plates and fixing the base plates (ts 114) would have been beyond Mr Koning's physical capabilities. He would also have had difficulties doing any welding work at height. Similarly lifting limestone blocks and carrying out block and brick work would have been beyond his physical capabilities in any realistic sense. Installing the tongue and groove floors required work below knee height. This would have been too difficult. Moving around the structure with the flooring frame and in and across the roof structure would have been beyond him. Installation of the sheets of iron for the roofing would have required him to manoeuvre across the frame of the roofing structure with an unstable knee. He does not feel safe working on ladders because of the instability in his right knee. That is an understandable and appropriate concern.
Although there may be some items that he could have carried up a ladder whilst working, by the use of a tool belt, so as to free both hands, it is unrealistic to expect him to have carried anything beyond that whilst working. He was inventive enough to have developed some sort of lift of pulley system to get certain items from the ground to higher levels. But, again it is simply unrealistic to expect this to be done in any practical sense.
The only way in which the development can realistically be completed is if a commercial builder is engaged to carry out the development. It follows that I do not accept that the right knee injury would only have delayed the development by a year.

Damages

Mr Koning's pecuniary claim is based on 3 heads:
(a)loss of rental because he was not able to continue living in the loft and had to require the tenants to vacate the house;
(b)loss of the benefit of his labour in completing the development, loss of materials already obtained prior to the injuries and loss of materials likely to have been sourced by him; and
(c) loss of rental on the two bedroom unit.

Loss of rental on the house

Initially the right knee injury made it too difficult for Mr Koning to access the loft. He endeavoured to live in the loft for 6 weeks after the collision. It was reasonable for him to ask the tenants to vacate. The evidence of one of the tenants, Dr House, is that they would have continued to rent the house if they had not been asked to vacate. Having regard to the nature of Mr Koning's injuries and the need for his injuries to stabilise, it was reasonable for him not to resume living in the loft for a period. He should have been able to access the loft by about March 2008. His knee injury had stabilised by that point and did not become any worse. Thereafter, although he could not climb ladders in a work capacity there is no reason why he could not have used the ladder to access the loft (Dr Home exhibit 5, pages 23 - 24, Dr Home ts 209). 18 months after the collision he could have re‑let the house. Using a broad brush approach I assess his loss under this head at $14,250. Interest at 3% from March 2008 to May 2012 is $1,710.

Loss of the value of his labour and materials

I accept that Mr Koning has suffered a loss as a result of the fact that he was not able to complete the development using his own labour. Mr Koning has calculated his losses arising from his labour at about $123,000.
Damages for the loss of Mr Koning's labour in completing the development are claimable (Tunstill v State Electricity Commission (WA) [1965] WAR 50). The difficulty this case presents is in calculating the value of that labour.
Essentially loss of labour under this head is a claim for loss of earning capacity. Mr Koning has based his claim on the labour element of the cost of construction of the units. The defendant did not challenge this method of calculating the labour cost. The defendant did challenge the information provided as a basis for making the calculation. The defendant correctly asserted that Mr McEvoy's calculation of the commercial cost is based on vague and inadequate plans. Mr McEvoy did the best he could with very limited information. He based his calculation on a medium level of finish. Given that Mr Koning was using so many second-hand materials it is likely that the finish would have been less than medium and the cost would have reduced accordingly. I make some reduction for the level of finish and for the uncertainties that Mr McEvoy necessarily had to deal in making his calculation by reason of the inadequate plans.
I can do more than choose a global figure to assess loss under this head. I assess his loss at $100,000 over 3 years of building. Interest at 3% over five years is $15,000.

Loss of the value of materials

It is very difficult to determine the value of the materials obtained by Mr Koning prior to the collision. I accept that a commercial builder would not have utilised those materials – sorting and cleaning them on a commercial basis would have been more trouble than it was worth. Mr Koning's evidence, put at its highest, was of the 2012 value of the items. Mr Koning's claim should have been the costs thrown away. I regard his evidence as to the value as to vague to perform any definite view as to the costs thrown away. Their evidence of what it cost him was not adequate. Mr Koning did not keep receipts for his purchases. There is anything sinister in that. I think that he simply did not keep the receipts because he did not imagine that he would ever need them. Doing the best I can, I assess the loss at $10,000. Interest on $10,000 for five years at 3% is $1,500.
I do not understand the basis for a claim based on materials that were not purchased and I do not make any allowance under this head.

Rental on the two bedroom unit

The two bedroom residential unit would have been rented once its development had been completed. Mr Koning put his case on the assumption that the two bedroom unit would have been completed on 1 January 2010. The rental figures are agreed. By reason of the injury Mr Koning will need to have the units commercially built and they should be completed by July 2013, approximately 12 months post assessment.
Loss of rental from the proposed two bedroom unit from 1 January 2010 until 1 May 2012 – 121 weeks at $500 per week less expenses of, say, $80/week. (121 weeks) x $357 ($500 less expenses of $80 and 15% taxation) = $43,197.
Loss of $500/week from rental on the two bedroom unit from 1 May 2012 until say 1 July 2013. $357 x 60 weeks = $21,420
This gives a total figure of about $64,000.
The defendant did not seriously contest this figure.
There would have been expenses in fitting out the unit for rental by way of floor coverings and window treatments which Mr Koning does not appear to have allowed for. I allow damages under this head at $60,000.
Interest on $60,000 for 2 1/2 years at 3% is $4,500.

General damages

Prior to his injuries Mr Koning surfed when he was down in Margaret River and used his bicycle on a daily basis. Since the collision he has not surfed and he has tried some cycling but has found it too painful. He can no longer dance. He no longer attends musical events, presumably because of the pain or stiffness from sitting still for an extended period of time.
The injury is a significant injury to his right knee and has had a significant impact on his enjoyment of life. He would inevitably suffered some back and neck pain from going over the bonnet of the car in the collision.
It is likely that he will have to use analgesics periodically for pain for the rest of his life.
He is likely to be more susceptible to arthritis in the right knee (Dr Home exhibit 5, page 25, page 36, Dr Kagi ts 307).
I assess general damage at $33,250. The amount allowable is $15,750.

Other heads

Special damages have been agreed at $2,890.
Mr Koning will continue to require analgesics and he may require more as arthritis sets in (Dr Home Exhibit 5, page 26). He will need to see his general practitioner on a regular basis (Dr Home exhibit 5, page 37). I allow $3,000 for future medical expenses.

Summary

Loss of rental on the house  $14,250
Interest$1,710
Loss of value of labour/earning capacity $100,000
Interest$15,000
Loss of cost of materials  $10,000
Interest$1,500
Loss of rental on 2 bedroom unit              $60,000
Interest$4,500
General damages  $15,750
Special damages  $2,890
Future medical expenses  $3,000

I assess damages at $228,600.
I will hear the parties as to costs