N783

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

NENTEPA PIAM

V

THE INDEPENDENT STATE OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA

Mount Hagen
Woods J
19 September 1989
30 October 1989

DAMAGES - Personal injuries - Particular awards of general damages - Knee injury - Post-traumatic arthritis - Permanent knee flexion problem - Loss of 50 per cent efficient use of knee - Subsistence farmer - Male aged about 50 - Award of K8,000 general damages - Award of K5,000 for future economic loss at subsistence level.

The plaintiff, a male subsistence farmer aged about 50 years, claimed damages for personal injuries suffered in a motor vehicle accident. He sustained injuries to his teeth, head and right knee (the latter developing an abscess) and mild post-traumatic arthritis. He had lost 50 per cent efficient use of the leg in terms of village life.

Held

(1) General damages for pain and suffering and loss of amenities should be assessed at K8,000.

(2) General damages for future economic loss at the subsistence level should be assessed at K5,000.

Cases Cited

Moia v PNG [1988] PNGLR 299.
Pep v Yamba [1987] PNGLR 485.

Statement of Claim

This was an action in which the plaintiff sought to recover damages for personal injuries as a result of a motor vehicle accident.

Counsel

D L O’Connor, for the plaintiff.
B V L Ninai, for the defendant.
Cur adv vult

30 October 1989

WOODS J: The plaintiff, Nentepa Piam, was injured in a motor vehicle accident on 8 September 1984, when he was a passenger in a motor vehicle which was struck by a vehicle owned by the defendant. The defendant admits the liability and this case has come on for trial as an assessment of damages.

In the accident, the plaintiff sustained injuries to his teeth, head and right knee and thigh and he was admitted to Mt Hagen General Hospital. Months later he developed an abscess over the right knee. This was drained and healed well and at that time there was no evidence of any infection involving bones. His injuries had healed and he was discharged.

However, later on, he found he was having problems with his right knee. Dr Kulunga, in 1987, found he was unable to flex his knee properly and had some tenderness. He forecast that he will develop a mild form of progressive post-traumatic arthritis in the knee and will have a permanent knee flexion problem. He estimated he has a 50 per cent permanent disability in the efficient use of his right knee in his daily village life.

The plaintiff is a village man, who earns his livelihood through basic subsistence effort in his village and garden. He does not know his age but in view of his family status with one wife and three children, the eldest of whom was born in 1973, his age is estimated at around 50 years old. In such a situation there are no figures available to show any economic loss. I must therefore assess an amount to cover his inability to participate fully in his required subsistence activities. Unlike Pep’s case (Pep v Yamba [1987] PNGLR 485), there are no figures to work from. Initially there are no figures to prove any past economic loss or the lessening of the return from his efforts since the accident; however, I feel that in future, with an obvious disability in the knee, there will be a reduction in his ability to participate in his subsistence activities. I have considered the case of Moia v PNG [1988] PNGLR 299 but the leg injuries in that case were clearly much more serious.

I consider therefore that for an amount for future economic loss at the subsistence level, bearing in mind the extent of his disability, an appropriate figure will be K5,000. For pain and suffering and loss of amenities, again bearing in mind it is a 50 per cent permanent disability, I would allow a figure of K8,000. Interest will be awarded on a quarter of the pain and suffering and loss of amenities, namely K2,000 at 8 per cent from the date of the writ till the date of judgment.

In summary:

Future economic loss 	K5,000.00 	
Pain, suffering & loss of amenities 	8,000.00 	
Interest 	308.60 	
	 K13,308.60 	

Judgment for K13,308.60.

Judgment accordingly

_________________

Lawyer for the plaintiff: D L O’Connor.
Lawyer for the defendant: State Solicitor.