National Court of Papua New Guinea

At approximately 9:30 am. on 16 July, 1988, the plff was walking along Kundu undu Road to West Taraka with her husband and son. A Toyota Hilux reation, ZKn, ZKG 310, driven by the first defendant and travelling from the apposite direction swerved to the plaintiff’s side of the road at high speed anuck her, knocking her down unconscious. She was takentaken to AMemu Memorial Hospital where she later regained consciousness. uffered injuries to her leer left leg, left thigh, left shoulder and abdomen and she was in great pain. Following X-rd initreatat t at the the outpatient, she was discharged on the same day.

Dr Badio who awho attended to the plaintiff on 16 July, noted that the left shoulder was tender on movements. Althoughy did not reveal veal veal any abnormalities, there was limited movements on the left shoulder due to non-use and fracture. He f the view that this wois would completely disappear after months.

In 1991, Dr., Dr. Gende reviewed the conditions of the plaintiff. He noted in his repated 15ed 15 April, 1991, tespite the fact that the plhe plaintiff did not suffer a dislocation or fracture, she had developed pereathritis shoulder and residuaability. He further noted no stral ural deficiency bucy but a functional loss of 5%. I assume octor meant that that the plaintiff had suffered a 5% loss of the efficient use of her right shoulder. There is evidence that snt continued to obtain medireatment till early 1994.

On 10 March, 1994, the plae plaintiff was reviewed by Dr Takitaki who noted that the plaintiff had tness over the deltoid insertion and over the lateral aspectspect of the 9th, 10th and 11th ribs with moderate degree of tender left shoulder joint. There was ncture or abnormbnormality. HoweDr Takitaki assessed tsed the loss of efficient use of the left shoulder joint at 20%. It is ob to me therefore tore that, as a direct consequence of the accident, the plaintiff has suffresidual disability on her her left shoulder and has 20% loss of the efficient use of that shoulder.

Counsel for the plaintiff, in his written submission filed on 25 August, 1995, has referred to some comparable verdicts on injury cases decided between 1980 and 1991. The awards in thases rangeranged between K6,600.00 to K38,000.00.

The plaintiff was aged about 42 years at the time of accident. She wasied with five childchildren. Attime of accident, she wahe was employed as a nurse at Taraka Health Centre. She is about 49 or ars olds old now. She is unableischarge some some of her usual domestic chores becausthe residual disability.&#1y. She s in hfidavfidavit that heat her personal life has been interfered with as a result of the ant. She c do heao heavy laundraundry by hand, such as blankets and she cannot carry heavy weights. She c put a mattress out iout insun. She cannot use an axe to chop firewood. She cannot work in theen aden as s as she cannot use an axe to chop firewood0; She cannot work in the garden as she cannot use a spade pade or a knife to cut things. She does not hall movementement of her lef and hand and she suffers cers continual pain. I am satisfied, on thidencidence, that the plaintiff has lost the enjoyment of l/p>

Awards increase over the years to take into account ount inflation. In this case, I consider ahat an award of K25,000.00ot unreasonable in the circ circumstances. I therefore assess damageK at K25,000.00 for pain and suffering and loss of amenitie>

There is evidence that she had incurred the sum of K30f K306.00 in attending hospital and other expenses, however, there is no csive evidence as to what soat some of these expenses were for. ugh, this amount is not diot disputed, it is my view that the plaintiff must provide evidence of what these expenses were for. ld reduce this amount by K by K106.00, therefore she would ly entitled to K200.00 in s in special damages.

I award interest at 8% from the date of the writ to the date of judgment, and urse, as cost follows the ethe event, she will have her costs.

The awards therefore are as follows:

I order that the Third Defendant pays the plaintiff’ss of these proceedings to b to be taxed, if not agreed upon.

Lawyer for Plaintiff: Warner Shand