Assessment Of Damages For Pain, Suffering And Loss of Amenity For Mesothelioma:-Swift J was required to assess damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity in respect of the 92 year old Claimant who had contracted mesothelioma following exposure to asbestos dust during the course of his former employment with the defendant. Swift J was required to consider the fact that the 10th Edition of the Judicial Studies Board Guidelines provided for a lower level award of £35,000.00 in respect of mesot ...
|
The Court of Appeal held that the judge's decision, that the Claimant had unreasonably failed to mitigate her loss in failing to accept the Defendant's offer of a replacement vehicle, was procedurally irregular in that the judge had decided the appeal on a basis contrary to the way in which it had been argued before him and without any indication that he was so minded (namely he did not hear any submissions on whether the Court of Appeal's decision in Copley v. Lawn [2009] EWCA Civ 580 should be ...
|
The Court of Appeal held that the judge had been entitled to adopt an acceleration approach as to the assessment of the claimant's back injury and damages to be awarded thereof. The claimant's expert's opinion was that there was no reason to suggest that the claimant would have suffered a similar disc prolapse in the future but for the accident. The expert opinion of the defendant's expert was that the claimant would have suffered from a similar prolapse within 2 years independently of the accid ...
|
Whilst recognising that an appellate court would only interfere in exceptional cases, the Court of Appeal held that the judge below had taken the wrong approach to the assessment of general damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity in a case of multiple personal injuries and accordingly it was entitled to look at his judgment afresh and substitute its own figure. The Court of Appeal held that the correct approach was to consider separate figures for each injury and then assess whether the ...
|
Swift J awarded the claimant general damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity in the sum of £235,000 in respect of personal injuries sustained as a result of the defendant's negligent management of his mother's labour and his subsequent birth. In particular, the claimant had sustained very severe brain damage which had a consequential profound effect on his everyday life. However, as the claimant lacked any significant degree of insight into his condition, Swift J held that his injuries w ...
|
In this personal injury action, the pursuer (a student who worked part-time in a supermarket) sought damages following a road accident on 29th July 2009. Liability was admitted and the pursuer’s claim for inconvenience was agreed at the sum of £50, in terms of the parties’ joint minute. The issue in this case was the amount of damages for solatium.As a result of the accident, the pursuer sustained low back pain and experienced travel anxiety and feelings of panic and stress. She attended her GP ...
|
The Pursuer raised an action of damages following a road accident in December 2008. She was 23 years old at the time of the accident and 25 at the date of proof. Liability was admitted but there was a dispute over quantum.The Pursuer suffered a soft tissue injury to her lower back as a result of the accident. She had suffered chronic pre existing back pain for about 7 years before the accident. This had caused her difficulties on a daily basis and she took anti-inflammatory medicati ...
|
Proof:- In this action the pursuer, a successful rally driver, sought damages from the defenders, a provider of maps via DVDs used to assist navigators in a rally, following a crash in which the pursuer’s car and he was psychiatrically injured. In this action the standard of negligence which fell to be applied was the ordinary standard or the professional negligence standard as set out in Hunter v Hanley 1955 SC 200. On 21 August 2004, the pursuer competed in a rally on Speyside. He was dr ...
|
The Pursuer claimed damages for injuries she suffered in a road traffic accident. Liability was not in dispute but quantum could not be agreed and a Proof took place. At the time of the Proof the Pursuer was 41 years old. She was the only witness to give evidence. On several important points her evidence was entirely different from the information she had given to the Consultant in Accident & Emergency Medicine and Surgery who had examined her and provided a medical report. Both partie ...
|
In a Summary Cause action, the Pursuer claimed damages following an incident in which his parked vehicle was struck and damaged by a vehicle driven by the Defender's employee. It was not disputed that the Pursuer needed a replacement vehicle. He hired a vehicle for 19 days at a cost of just under £5,000. Although prepared to pay the cost of repairing the Pursuer’s vehicle, the Defender disputed liability to pay the cost of an engineer’s report and also part of the hire char ...
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 |