Rowe v Edwards

Reginald Lloyd Rowe, an infant, by his next friend, appealed to the High Court of Australia against a decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The appellant had brought an action for damages against Leslie Malcolm Edwards following a motor vehicle collision that caused serious and permanent injuries to the appellant, including a broken leg, significant pain, and loss of earning capacity. The jury awarded £109 4s. in special damages and only £50 for general damages, encompassing actual and prospective loss of earnings and pain and suffering.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the sum awarded for general damages was so inadequate as to warrant a new trial. The appellant argued that the jury's award was manifestly inadequate and likely influenced by an improper reference to workers' compensation. The respondent contended that the Supreme Court had correctly applied the relevant principles and that the High Court should not interfere with the jury's verdict.

The High Court, by a majority, allowed the appeal. The majority (Rich, Evatt, and McTiernan JJ.) found that the £50 awarded for general damages was so disproportionately small given the severity and permanence of the appellant's injuries, pain, and loss of earning capacity, that it was unreasonable and indicated the jury had failed to properly consider the evidence or had been improperly influenced. They applied the principle that a verdict may be set aside if the damages awarded are so small that no sensible jury could reasonably have awarded them, or if the jury has taken into account irrelevant matters or disregarded relevant ones.

The High Court ordered that the appeal be allowed, the judgment of the Supreme Court be discharged, and a new trial be limited to the question of damages. The appellant was awarded costs of the appeal to the High Court, and the respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal to the Full Court. The costs of the first trial were to be costs in the cause.