[1987] KEHC 32 (KLR)
The court found that the defendants were liable for damages to plaintiff 2 as a result of negligent driving. In assessing general damages, the court considered the medical evidence, particularly the divergent opinions on the risk of vascular necrosis. The court preferred Mr Hicks' prognosis, finding the risk of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [1987] KEHC 32 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Shah & 2 Others; Defendant: Sackar & Another
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 462 of 1981
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Judgment
- Outcome
- Plaintiff 2 awarded general damages for personal injuries sustained in the accident.
- Legal Topics
- Personal Injury, Negligence, Motor Vehicle Accident, Assessment of Damages
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Shah & 2 Others
Appellant
Sackar & Another
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 What is the appropriate quantum of general damages payable to plaintiff 2 for injuries sustained in the motor vehicle accident.
- 2 What is the likelihood and impact of vascular necrosis as a complication of the injuries sustained by plaintiff 2.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the defendants were liable for damages to plaintiff 2 as a result of negligent driving. In assessing general damages, the court considered the medical evidence, particularly the divergent opinions on the risk of vascular necrosis. The court preferred Mr Hicks' prognosis, finding the risk of vascular necrosis to be small, and noted that the overall lasting impairment was negligible. The court also considered the plaintiff's satisfactory growth and educational prospects, and the lack of severe discomfort. After reviewing comparable awards in cited cases, the court determined that Kshs 140,000 was a reasonable sum for general damages. Interest at court rates and costs of...
Court Disposition
Plaintiff 2 awarded general damages for personal injuries sustained in the accident.
Orders
- Plaintiff 2 is awarded Kshs 140,000 as general damages.
- Interest on the award at court rates.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI LAW COURTS)
CIVIL CASE NO 462 OF 1981
SHAH & 2 OTHERS....................................APPELLANT
V
SACKAR & ANOTHER................................DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT
April 10, 1987, Rauf J delivered the following Judgment.
In this case I have to decide general damages for plaintiff 2 only as the claims of plaintiff 1 and plaintiff 3 have been settled.
The defendants have admitted liability for damages payable to plaintiff 2 in respect of the injuries she has sustained in a vehicle accident that took place on May 27, 1979 along Eldama-Ravine/Nakuru road. Plaintiff 2 was a passenger in motor vehicle No KSA 848 belonging to the first defendant and driven by the second defendant. The accident was admittedly caused by the negligent driving of the second defendant as stated in the plaint.
The second plaintiff’s injuries are set out in the plaint and confirmed by not less than four doctors whose reports are produced by the plaintiff as Ex 1 in a bundle. The doctors are in agreement about the major injuries, but there is a substantial difference on the possibility of developing a vascular necrosis. Mr Hicks in his report puts the risk of this complication developing in this plaintiff’s case as “small”. Mr Patel in his report puts it as high as 70%. Mr Hicks, however, has given his reasons for the low risk in view of the plaintiff’s age and other points that he listed under the heading “Opinion” on page 2 of the report. Mr Patel seems to rely on speculative statistics when he put the risk at 70% in his report dated March 19, 1982 in these words, “usually this happens in 70% of the cases”.Since both reports were produced by the plaintiff, I am sure that the doctors were entirely guided by their professional judgment without any bias.Having read all other reports in the bundle and having considered the reasons set out by Mr. Hicks, I am inclined to accept Mr Hick’s prognosis and find that the possibility of the onset of a vascular necrosis is small. I need not elaborate on other injuries on which there is consensus. The overall lasting impairment is negligible and most of the transient ones will hopefully disappear.
This plaintiff is growing satisfactorily and her educational prospects are not bad. Discomfort will not be severe.
None of the cases cited by Mr Gitau are helpful in my task of evaluating the general damages. The injuries and permanent disabilities in those cases were enormous. Luckily, the present case is not that bad.
The cases cited by Mr Patel are useful as a guide. Having compared the awards in all the cases cited by both counsel, I consider a global figure of Kshs 140,000 as reasonable. I, therefore, award Kshs 140,000 as general damages with interest thereon at court rates and costs of the suit.
April 10, 1987
RAUF J