Matenje v Beams (Civil Cause 899 of 1990) [1992] MWHC 33 (13 February 1992)

14-23 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAWL PRINCIPAL REGISTRY CIVIL CAUSE NO. 899 OF 1990 BETWEEN: F. MATENJE (FEMALE).........00--005. PLAINTIFF " -and- M. R.° BEAMS (MALE)..... Liaw wo Pie bam x DEFENDANT CORAM: — D. F. MWAUNGULU : REGISTRAR For the Plaintiff : Chatsika ORDER ' The plaintiff was bitten by a neighbour's dog on the 10th of March, 1989. Judgment was obtained by default. Liability is, therefore, conceded. The only issue for the court is the quantum.of damages. The plaintiff wants damages for pain and suffering, disfigurements and shock. The plaintiff cannot recover for shock. The evidence does not raise circumstances in which damages can be recovered. For shock, even in legal parlance, denotes shock in the medical sense. There must be physical or mental harm: - "When the word ‘shock! is used in the authorities, it is not in the sense of a mental reaction but in a medical sense, the equivalent of nervous shock"(Per Lord Devlin in Rehrens and Behrens -vs- - Bertram Mills Circus Limited (1957) 2 QB 1, 27-28 ~The condition alluded to by the plaintiff is really a horrification and reaction. It is less than what courts award damages for shock for. The plaintiff had two bites: one on the right thigh and the other on the left arm. She was not admitted. She continued to be an outpatient till the 20th of May, 1989. She suffered no permanent incapacity. She will have no further treatment. The doctor, rightly in my view, says’ the injuries are not serious. In the United Kingdom, awards for such injuries, which can be properly described as trivial, -are very low. There is no minimum, however: . * . —* : ey eee ~2- "If, however, as Lord Justice Lawton has said, the impression is that £200 is the minimum to be awarded by a Judge in any personal injuries case, however trivial the injuries and whatever the surrounding cirumstances, I add my view that such an impression is wrong and ought not to be supported or given any ** approval of any sort by anything that is said in this court." (per Megaw L. J. In Moore -v- Maidstone and District Motor Services (1979) C. A No. 92 The court must award according to the nature of the injuries and the circumstances of the particular case. It is the duty of judges to assess as best as they can the extent of the damage done to the plaintiff. (per Lord Justice Lawton, ibid) In the United Kingdom the following passages reflect the attitude to trivial injuries. Lord Evershed M. R said in Wilson -vs- Pilley (1957) 1 W. C. R. 1141; ee "S75 for general damages would be ME WALA) 2 we ; : LER OOF NAM ‘appropriate, and appropriate only, to (oo , compensate pain and suffering and YX ! A a 9 damages LH cases which, if not i/ f rEERYE ftrifling, could properly be classified oe ( = ~ as slight and such as would be likely XO a Ua to have no future effects of a lasting . . nature, still less of a permanent character" In King and Others -v— Percival (1982) CA No. 82/173 Watkins L. J. said "Having regard to the effects of inflation and to exambples of recent awards, it would appear that the £75 which was used as a kind of touchstone by Eversher is, in these times, to be elavated to something to a region of about £300." In this particular case the right award would be K300. The plaintiff is entitled to damages for disfigurement. There is very clear authority for awarding damages on this head. The injuries sustained in this case are nothing compared to the case in mind. The injury here is on the thigh. The injury is not in a conspicflous place. Admittedly a lover or suitor would be distracted by such scars. The distreaction would be transient and effervescent tl awardd KS500 on this head. a B= Special damages have not been proved. The claims are mentioned in the statement of claim. The witness has not led evidence on them. This is not enough. The plaintiff should prove the special damages. Made in Chamber this )HA- day of nw 19. G onviat Blantyre.