McNulty v Marshall's Food Group Ltd
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 23 October 1999 |
| Date | 23 October 1999 |
| Docket Number | No 20 |
| Court | Court of Session (Outer House) |
OUTER HOUSE
Lord Macfadyen
ReparationDamagesPersonal injuries or deathMeasure of damagesFuture loss of earningsAppropriate multiplierAppropriate use of Ogden Tables
ReparationDamagesPersonal injuries or deathMeasure of damagesBack and neck
On 15 March 1995 the pursuer was struck on the back and neck by boxes falling from a pallet truck during unloading operations in the course of his employment with the defenders. He brought an action of damages against his former employers in which liability was admitted. The cause came to proof on quantum before the Lord Ordinary (Lord Macfadyen). The major point in issue was whether the main disabling condition from which the pursuer was subsequently diagnosed as suffering, being a lumbar disc prolapse, had been caused by the accident. The pursuer had remained absent from work for nine weeks after the accident with predominant pain in his neck and not severe pain in his back. On 17 May 1995 a doctor recorded that the pursuer was pain free and he returned to work. A decrease in neck pain ensued after returning to work, but an increase in back pain. To alleviate that pain the pursuer used painkillers, including some prescribed for his wife. He did not revert to his doctor. Pain increased and by October 1995 he was unable to sleep. On 30 October 1995 the pursuer's doctor recorded that he had low back pain, left sciatic radiation with limitation of spinal flexion. He had sustained a disc prolapse and underwent a discectomy on 13 August 1997. Although his condition improved substantially, the pursuer continued to suffer back pain which limited his activities and caused him to be unable to walk or stand for long periods or to bend or lift weights.
Held (1) that the appropriate award for solatium was 20,000; (2) that past wages fell to be calculated at 15,000 per annum, (3) that the proper approach to selection of a multiplier for future loss of earnings was to take the Ogden Tables as the starting point, and to select the multiplier by reference to the figures for a rate of return of 3%; (4) that on the evidence it was probable that the pursuer would not obtain suitable employment and appropriate to apply a reduced multiplicand giving eight years at 15,000 and three years at 9,000; (5) that the pursuer's wife's claim for services was valued at 2,500; (6) that the pursuer's brother's claim for driving him to medical appointments, etc, was valued at 500; (7) that 3,500 was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
John Leebody V. Gordon Liddle
...Coal Corporation 1993 SLT 467, Burke v Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh NHS Trust Limited 1999 SLT 539, McNulty v Marshalls Food Group Limited 1999 SC 195, and Grassie v MacLaren (Lord Cameron of Lochbroom, 26 March 1999, unreported). [34] The second part of Mr McEachran's submission, which req......
-
Mrs. Carol Dall Or Cochrane V. John Gaughan
...has allocated to it a range of £14,500 to £20,000. He also relied on the decision of Lord Macfadyen in McNulty v Marshalls Food Group Ltd 1999 S.C. 195 where solatium of £20,000 was awarded in respect of the consequences of a prolapsed intervertebral disc. If I was not persuaded that £20,00......
-
Iseabal Emslie V. Anne Bell
...interest. In support of this he referred me to McWhinney v British Coal Corporation 1993 SLT 467, McNulty v Marshalls Food Group Limited 1999 SC 195 and Burke v Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh NHS Trust Limited 1999 SLT 539. He accepted that each of these case might be regarded as slightly mor......
-
Gordon Mackenzie V. H.d. Fraser & Sons
...the uncritical adoption of the Ogden Tables in Wells v Wells 1999 1 A.C. 365 and its sequels in Scotland McNulty v Marshalls Food Group 1999 S.C. 195 and Wilson v Byeroy Ltd 2000 S.L.T. 1087, I would have regarded appropriate compensation at the figure of £45,000. [12]However, since the Cou......