MANU AND ANOTHER v. MENSAH

JUDGMENT OF ADUMUA-BOSSMAN J.S.C.

There is the question of the quantum of damages awarded, in respect of which it has been contended on behalf of the defendants that “the amount awarded as damages was excessive and a wholly (or substantially) erroneous estimate of the damage which the plaintiff actually suffered (in the circumstances of the case).” It is to be observed that the learned trial judge approached the subject with some degree of apprehension and diffidence, for he said, after determining the question of the defendants’ liability, “That leave me with the not too easy question, namely, what is the quantum of damages to which the plaintiff is entitled.” He then proceeded to refer to the plaintiff’s injuries as to which he observed as follows:

“The plaintiff suffered severe injuries and was unconscious for no less than two weeks. He had convulsive seizures which enabled Dr. Bilson to express the opinion that he had severe internal bleeding in the head. This was complicated by bilateral pneumonia. The plaintiff’s sufferings did not cease with his discharge from hospital. He has poor vision in the right eye, sensation of heaviness in the head, and frequent attacks of dizziness. The medical opinion is that these are the natural result of the head injuries which plaintiff received. Although he has reported back to work, he has to attend the company's doctor at least twice a month to receive further medical treatment. Plaintiff says he cannot now lift up heavy books from the ground without feeling pains, and that if he stood for a long time he feels pains in his head and behind his back. I have seen the plaintiff, and I have no doubt that he was in earnest. Before the accident the plaintiff stuttered; I think he was born so. This has been worsened by the accident and explains the difficulty he experienced in his speech while giving evidence. Dr. Anfom who examined him in July 1961, put his residual incapacity as ten per cent."

Having referred to the plaintiff is injuries in detail as above, he went on however to point out that the plaintiff in effect suffered no direct pecuniary loss, when he observed that:

"The plaintiff’s employers have so far shown great kindness to him. He was paid full wages for the eight months that the accident kept him out of work, [p.313] and have sent him for treatment at their own expense. How long they would feel able to keep the plaintiff on, in view of his present condition, I do not speculate."

He then concluded his