Towers v Hevilift Ltd (No 2)

The case of Towers v Hevilift Ltd (No 2) involved a dispute over the measure of damages for personal injury suffered by the plaintiff, who was a helicopter pilot, as a result of a helicopter crash caused by the defendant's negligence. The primary legal issues before the court were the assessment of the plaintiff's loss of earnings and earning capacity, life expectancy, and other pecuniary damages. The court also considered the appropriate discount for recurrent future expenses and the method of assessment for damages.

The court meticulously examined the evidence presented regarding the plaintiff's life expectancy, including expert medical testimony based on published actuarial data. The court found that the data presented showed a seemingly inconsistent trend in standardised mortality ratios (SMRs) between different age brackets and injury categories, which required explanation. Despite acknowledging the apparent anomaly, the court relied on the actuarial data to determine the plaintiff's life expectancy, albeit with adjustments for individual conditions. The court also evaluated the plaintiff's potential career trajectory, considering his status as a competent but not exceptional pilot, and assessed whether he would have continued his work until the age of 70 or advanced further in his career.

Additionally, the court reviewed the plaintiff's claims for household maintenance costs, mowing and gardening expenses, and household cleaning. The court adopted a conservative approach due to the minimal and largely uncorroborated evidence provided, resulting in reduced awards for these items. The court also deliberated on the defendant's contention for a 10 per cent discount on damages for recurrent future expenses due to vicissitudes, ultimately deciding that this figure was not appropriate given the severity of the plaintiff's injuries and the risk of undercompensation.

The court's final orders included the payment of $5,652,072.74 to the plaintiff as damages, with further directions for the parties to address the issue of costs.