George v Pinnock
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE SACHS,LORD JUSTICE ORR,LORD JUSTICE BUCKLEY |
| Judgment Date | 08 November 1972 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1972] EWCA Civ J1108-1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 08 November 1972 |
[1972] EWCA Civ J1108-1
Lord Justice Sachs,
Lord Justice Buckley and
Lord Justice Orr.
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
(Appeal of 1st defendants from Order of Mr. Justice Thesiger, 3rd December, 1971.)
MR R. ROUGIER, Q. C. and MR T. PRESTON, (instructed by Messrs. Bolton & Lowe) appeared on behalf of the Appellant (First Plaintiff).
MR R. GIBSON, Q. C. and MR J. CROWLEY, (instructed by Messrs. Badham, Comins & Main) appeared on behalf of the Respondent (First Defendant).
I will ask Lord Justice Orr to deliver the first judgment.
This is an appeal, on the ground that it was too low, against an award of damages made by Mr, Justice Thesiger on the 1st December, 1971, in respect of injuries arising out of a road accident. The first plaintiff in the action is the appellant, Miss Judith George, whom I will call the plaintiff, since in the event she was the only effective plaintiff; it being agreed at the hearing that damages claimed by the second plaintiff, her mother, in respect of loss by her in consequence of her looking after her daughter since the accident should be included in the damages awarded to the daughter.
At the time of the accident, which took place on the 24th June, 1967, the plaintiff was 21 years of age; was employed as a punch operator in a data processing department earning some £900 a year, and was living with her mother, Mrs. Iris George, then aged 48; her grandmother, Mrs. Martin, then in her late sixties; and a brother a little older than herself; at Bromley in a house acquired by the local authority and let by them at the very low rent of 17/9d a week. Her parents had lived apart for many years and have subsequently been divorced, and the mother was in employment from which it was common ground that she received an income of £13 a week, and which it was also common ground that she gave up shortly after the accident in order to look after her daughter, which she had done with devoted care ever since.
The circumstances of the accident were that on the morning of the 24th June, 1967, the plaintiff was being driven in a taxi towards Victoria Station when it was run into by a motor car driven by the first defendant, Mr. Pinnock, who has accepted his responsibility for the collision. The result of the collision was that the plaintiff was thrown forward against the glasspartition behind the driver. She was admitted the same morning, unconscious, to St. George's Hospital, where she was found to be suffering from head injuries and from a dislocation of the left hip. The hip injury caused some pain, which the learned judge took into account in his award, but it is of small importance in comparison with the head injuries, which were diagnosed as involving severe brain stem damage, the effect of which is revealed by passages in successive reports made by Mr. Richardson, a neuro-surgeon, and quoted in the judgment under appeal.
In his first report, dated 10th October, 1969, Mr. Richardson said: "She first came under my care on 3rd September, 1968, at which point the situation was that she was in a wheelchair and physically unable to move from it, and had evidence of marked mental blunting with severe impairment of memory, lack of initiative and intellectual blunting of quite a severe degree. in addition, she had marked difficulty in voice production and could only produce occasional words. She had, in essence, severe weakness of all her limbs and her state at this point could best be described as totally incapacitated both from the mental and physical point of view and requiring continuous help in every activity."
In a later report, dated 29th June, 1970, Mr. Richardson said: "Since my last report of October 1969 there has, unfortunately, been no improvement in the patient's abilities and she is still confined to a wheelchair and still requires considerable help in assuming the standing position. There is no change in the degree of dependence which she showed in relation to personal activities such as washing, dressing, toilet etc., all of which require the full assistance of two people. The mental blunting which I referred to in my previous report has changed little and the additional point which both parents madewas that she has recently been subject to recurrent attacks of bronchitis, which persist for several weeks." in a passage headed "On Examination", he adds: "She was still confined to a wheelchair. Word production was severely limited and was almost inaudible. She still showed severe weakness of both upper limbs with poor control and grossly limited co-ordination. As before, the left arm was more markedly affected than the right, but even in these circumstances the use to which she could put her right hand was markedly limited. The lower limbs remained unchanged with severe spastic weakness of both legs with impairment of sensation below the knees, particularly on the left side. Her sitting balance was poor and we were only able to stand her from the chair with great difficulty."
In the interval between that report and Mr. Richardson's final report the plaintiff, with her mother and grandmother, had left Bromley and gone to live in a bungalow at Broadstone, Dorset, which, with the furniture in it, was bought in the plaintiff's name at a cost of £14,500 (being £12,000 for the bungalow and £2,500 for the furniture), which sum the first defendant's insurers paid to the plaintiff on account of the award of damages which would in due course be made in her favour. This bungalow had two main attractions; the first, that it provided a bathroom on the ground floor, which was quite essential in view of the plaintiff's disability; and the second, that the air of Dorset offered alleviation from the bronchitis referred to in the report of Mr. Richardson from which I have just quoted, of which after the accident the plaintiff had suffered at Bromley attacks lasting several weeks at a time, but on the evidence she has been free from that trouble since the move was made.
In his third and last report, dated 8th September, 1971, after this move was made, Mr. Richardson said: "This move onlyhas some relevance in relation to the case with which the patient can be cared for as opposed to the previous arrangement where the structure of the house increased the difficulties. in general it is fair to say that the situation has changed very little in any significant way since the last report was completed. Her mother felt that Judith was a little more cheerful and suggested that she tried to help a little more but this resolved itself into a somewhat increased ability to wash her face and clean her teeth and feed herself and to apply cosmetics. There has, however, been no change in the patient's dependence for all the other essentials of life such as getting in and out of bed, dressing, bathing, attention to menstrual hygiene and other personal details. Whilst the mother suggested that Judith was feeding herself, It was still clear that food required to be cut up and presented in a very simple form so that the patient could manage it easily with a fork and spoon."
From these reports It is clear, and has not been in dispute, that the plaintiff will never be able to work, will not marry and will have to be cared for by others for the rest of her life.
There were called as witnesses for the plaintiff at the hearing Mr. Richardson and her present general practitioner, Dr. Fleming, and also her mother and a friend of the mother's, a Miss Dixon, who also lives at Broadstone. The mother's evidence was that she had given up her employment to look after her daughter, and also the prospect of re-marriage: and it is, I think, true to say that she has since the accident devoted her whole life to her daughter's care. She gave evidence that she had tried before leaving her former home to use the district nursing service, but that had been abandoned after an incidentinvolving a dirty sheet. She had not tried the district nursing service at the new home, but was looking after the plaintiff with the help of her mother and Miss Dixon, who takes the daughter out in her car. She described her routine, which includes at night turning the plaintiff over in her bed and attending to her other needs, and in the morning, with the assistance of her mother, Mrs. Martin, now 74, lifting the plaintiff out of bed; the necessity of supplying a suppository to facilitate the plaintiff's motions; a delay of half an hour or more often before that takes effect; and then putting her back to bed again with the help of her mother. She does not feel able to leave the plaintiff for more than a short time because of the age gap between the plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Liong Thoo v Sawiyah Hj Sirat and Others
-
Roberts v Johnstone
...The judge's reasoning appears at pp.16–21 of the judgment. He cited an extensive passage from the judgment of Lord Justice Orr, in George v. Pinnock, [1973] 1 WLR, 118 at p.124. It is sufficient for the purposes of this appeal to cite only part of the judgment more extensively cited by the......
-
Koh Soon Pheng v Tan Kah Eng
...ensure that all authorities that they cite represent the current state of the law as at the date of citation: at [22].] George v Pinnock [1973] 1 WLR 118 (folld) Povey v W E & E Jackson [1970] 1 WLR 969; [1970] 2 All ER 495 (not folld) Smith v Manchester Corporation (1974) 17 KIR 1 (folld) ......
- Heeralall v Hack Bros. (Construction) Company Ltd et Al