Dolbey v Goodwin

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeTHE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE,LORD JUSTICE HODSON,LORD JUSTICE ROMER
Judgment Date08 November 1954
Judgment citation (vLex)[1954] EWCA Civ J1108-4
CourtCourt of Appeal
Docket Number1952 D. No. 1748.
Date08 November 1954

[1954] EWCA Civ J1108-4

In the Supreme Court of Judicature.

Court of Appeal.

Before:

The Lord Chief Justice of England

(Lord Goddard)

Lord Justice Hodson, and

Lord Justice Romer

1952 D. No. 1748.
Edith Maud Dolbey (Widow) suing as Administratrix of the Estate of Frederick Charles Dolbey deceased
and
Frederick Goodwin

Counsel for the Appellant: MR F. W. BENEY, Q. C., and MR RONALD HOPKINS, instructed by Messrs F.J. Stewart & Co.

Counsel for the Respondent: MR R. MARVEN EVERETT, Q. C., and SIR SHIRLEY WORTHINGTON-EVANS, instructed by Messrs G. Howard & Co.

THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE
1

This is an appeal from an award of Mr Justice Cassels who, having found that the Plaintiff in the action, the mother of the deceased man, was entitled to recover damages under the Fatal Accidents Act, assessed the damages at £3,100, and gave in addition £237. 10s. 0d., which was £200 for loss of expectation of life, and £37. 10s. 0d. for the funeral expenses.

2

There is no objection raised to the learned Judge's assessment of the damages under the Law Reform Act, £237. 10s. Od., but it is submitted on behalf of the Defendant that the award of £3,100 is so excessive that this Court ought to interfere.

3

Just to show that we also have kept everything in mind, one knows in the case of Flint v. Lovell and other cases that where a learned Judge has not given precise reasons, or one cannot see from his judgment exactly what he took into account, so that the Court does not know whether he took into account something he ought not to have taken into account, or omitted to take something into account which he should have done, this Court can only look at the total amount which has been awarded, and from that must come to a conclusion as to whether the amount awarded is so excessively high or so unreasonably low that it must amount to an erroneous estimate.

4

The young man in question in this case seems to have been a very steady fellow, a non-smoker and a non-drinker; he always went home to his mother, and was supporting his mother. He was 29 years of age, and she seems to have been 25 years old then he was. He seems to have been a young man who took a long view, because he gave up some work at which he was earning more money than he was earning at the time of his death in order to qualify himself so that in future he would be qualified to take a more responsible position and, no doubt, a better paid one thanhe had at the time of his death.

5

As I have said, the learned Judge assessed the damages at £3,100 in the case of this comparatively young man of 29 who was living with his mother, and who was paying the rent of the house as the other members of the family had left, and I suppose it would cost the mother at least £1 a week to keep him, although he bought his own clothes. We all know that in these days food is very expensive, and I should think it could not have cost the mother very much less than £1; so the mother was getting the benefit of something like £4 or £4. 5s. Od. a week at the time of her son's death; but, of course, she was not the boy's wife; she was his mother, and a matter which has to be borne in mind is that the moral obligation to keep his mother was very strong, and we give full effect to that, but there was no legal obligation on him, because nowadays the law is different from what it used to be, and whilst a woman is bound to support her husband and her children if she can, children are no longer bound to support their parents. However, that is not a matter which weighs very heavily in the scale, because, no...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Scott v Musial
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal
    • 6 July 1959
    ...they may not have great experience in the matter, twelve heads should be better than one". In a case in the following year, the case of Dolbey v. Goodwin (reported in 1955, 2 All England Reports, page 166) Lord Goddard, Lord Chief Justice, said: "The court is always reluctant to interfere i......
  • Ward v James
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal
    • 25 January 1965
    ...injuries afford a good reason for ordering trial. by jury. At any rate, it is a consideration which should be given great weight; see Dolby v. Goodwin, (1955) 1 Weekly Law Reports, at page 553, Burrows v. Metal bex Company in 1956, (Kemp & Kemp, page 528) and Page v. George, (1960) 1 Weekly......
  • Pang Ah Chee v Chong Kwee Sang
    • Malaysia
    • Federal Court (Malaysia)
    • Invalid date
  • Crawford Lennan v Cabaral (DBA Advanced Diving) and Tucker
    • Belize
    • Supreme Court (Belize)
    • 30 September 2010
    ...her parents? Evidence concerning these matters are relevant for purpose of determining the multipland. 66 The claimant relies also on Dolbey v. Goodwin [1955] 1 W.L.R. 553; and Watten v. Vernon (1970) R.T.R. 471. In Dolbey, there was evidence before the court that the deceased was in employ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT