Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Papua New Guinea Law Reports

Maipen v Motor Vehicles Insurance (PNG) Trust [1990] PGLawRp 316; [1990] PNGLR 559 (16 February 1990)

Papua New Guinea Law Reports - 1990

[1990] PNGLR 559 - Simon Maipen v MVIT�

[1990] PNGLR 559

N813

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

MAIPEN

V

MOTOR VEHICLES INSURANCE (PNG) TRUST

Mount Hagen

Woods J

21 December 1989

16 February 1990

DAMAGES - Personal Injuries - Particular awards of general damages - Head injury - Unconscious - Speedy recovery - Possibility of epilepsy and mental incapacity - Male child aged four (10 at trial) - Award of K12,000 general damages.

The plaintiff, a male child aged four years (10 years at date of trial) claimed damages for personal injuries suffered when involved in a motor vehicle accident. The plaintiff suffered a depressed fracture of the skull, was unconscious for one day and healed quickly, but with a possibility of residual epilepsy and a possible change in mental capacity.

Held:

Damages for pain and suffering and loss of amenities should be assessed at K12,000.

Cases Cited

The following cases are cited in the judgment:

Coady (an infant) v Motor Vehicles Insurance (PNG) Trust [1985] PNGLR 450.

Reading v Motor Vehicles Insurance (PNG) Trust [19881 PNGLR 266.

Trial

This was an action in which the plaintiff sought damages for personal injuries suffered in a motor vehicle accident.

Counsel:

R Kopunye, for the plaintiff.

M Maladina, for the defendant.

Cur adv vult

16 February 1990

WOODS J.: The plaintiff, Simon Maipen, an infant aged about four years at the time of the accident is suing by his next friend for damages for injuries he received in a motor vehicle accident on 7 April 1984. He is suing the Trust as the insurer of the vehicle involved. The defendant admits liability and this case has come on for trial as an assessment of damages.

At the time of the accident the plaintiff lost consciousness from the injuries he received.

The injuries were a depressed fracture of the skull and he was unconscious for one day. He spent two weeks in hospital. One month after leaving hospital he had an epileptic seizure.

Medical examinations since then suggest no obvious neurological deficiencies.

There have been suggestions of bizarre behaviour, and talk of burning houses and chopping trees. However the medical report states that his alleged bizarre behaviour is really frontal syndrome and this does not relate to the area injured, although the doctor does not discount any intracranial extension of the injury.

There are reports from a school teacher. However I cannot give them any weight as they suggest the teacher had the plaintiff in his class before the accident. As the accident happened over five years ago when the child was four years old this must be patently misleading. The teacher�s report is so confusing and misleading that it must be ignored.

I am left with medical reports which suggest that it is highly likely that the head injury may have left young Simon with residual epilepsy and possibly a change in mental capacity. However, any definite analysis of that is impossible and must be a matter of conjecture.

So what do I have on which to assess compensation? A short period in hospital after a serious injury which repaired quickly but leaving the doubts as to possible long term residual change.

I have been referred to the case of Coady (an infant) v Motor Vehicles Insurance (PNG) Trust [1985] PNGLR 450 where a young boy suffered some head injuries and required quite extensive medical treatment but there were some doubts as to the residual disabilities.

I was also referred to Reading v Motor Vehicles Insurance (PNG) Trust [1988] PNGLR 266 where a young child suffered severe head injuries which has resulted in severe and clearly ascertainable mental disabilities.

I was also referred to other cases ranging in between the Reading and Coady cases. However I cannot find that the situation is anywhere near the same as the Reading case. The injuries and facts seem to be more in line with the Coady case. But the actual hospitalisation and medical treatment would not be as severe as in the Coady case.

In the Coady case which was four years ago, I awarded K12,000 for general damages. So balancing out the less hospitalisation and medical treatment and pain with the greater possibility of residual mental disabilities, I consider the same amount as appropriate.

I allow K12,000 for general damages for pain and suffering and loss of amenities. I am unable to consider any economic loss.

I allow interest on K6,000 of the general damages at 8 per cent from the date of the issue of the writ to the date of judgment.

K13,390

Judgment for piff

Lawyer forr for the plaintiff: P Kopunye.

Lawyers for the defendant: Young & Williams.