Nicol and Nicol v Rabbitt

The case of Nicol and Nicol v Rabbitt involved an appeal against the quantum of damages awarded by the trial judge to the first plaintiff, who had suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident that led to the death of his wife. The defendants admitted liability, and the only relevant head of loss was the loss of domestic services provided by the deceased. The first plaintiff challenged the trial judge’s determination that the deceased spent an average of 30 hours per week on household duties, arguing it failed the “goodness gracious me” test or was not justifiable given the specific evidence at trial. The second plaintiff argued that the trial judge's allowance of one year's dependency was unreasonable given his age and job outlook. The appeal focused on whether the damages awarded were excessive or inadequate.

The central legal issue was whether the trial judge’s findings regarding the amount of time the deceased spent on household duties and the period of dependency for the second plaintiff were within the range reasonably open to the trial judge, or whether they constituted an error warranting a new trial or an adjustment of damages. The court had to assess whether the trial judge's findings were manifestly excessive or inadequate, considering the specific evidence and the principles set out in relevant case law. The court noted that the deceased might have also benefited from her work, but this did not necessarily invalidate the trial judge’s findings. Furthermore, the court considered the reasonableness of the dependency period granted to the second plaintiff, taking into account his age and job prospects.

The court found that the trial judge’s determination of the time spent on household duties by the deceased was within the range reasonably open to the trial judge, and did not fail the “goodness gracious me” test. The allowance of one year’s dependency for the second plaintiff was also deemed reasonable, given his age and employment prospects. The court held that the overall assessment of damages was not manifestly excessive. Consequently, the court varied the damages awarded to the first plaintiff by reducing the amount from $159,050 to $152,050, and dismissed the appeal with costs to be assessed.

ORDERS:
The judgment of 9th September 1999 was varied by deleting the figure of $159,050 in favour of the first plaintiff and inserting in lieu thereof the amount $152,050. The appeal was dismissed with costs to be assessed.