Othman bin Ahmad v Singapore Traction Company Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 22 September 1965
• Date: 22 September 1965
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No 38 of 1965
• Court: Federal Court (Singapore)

Othman bin Ahmad

Plaintiff

and

Singapore Traction Co Ltd

Defendant

[1965] SGFC 4

Tan Ah Tah ACJ

,

M Buttrose J

and

F A Chua J

Civil Appeal No 38 of 1965

Federal Court

Damages–Assessment–Deformity and shortening of leg–Osteo-arthritis–Pain and suffering and loss of amenities–Loss of future earnings–Damages–Compensation and damages–Deformity and shortening of leg–Osteo-arthritis–Pain and suffering and loss of amenities–Loss of future earnings–Damages–Inadequate damages–Deformity and shortening of leg–Osteo-arthritis–Pain and suffering and loss of amenities–Loss of future earnings–Damages–Measure of damages–Personal injuries cases–Deformity and shortening of leg–Osteo-arthritis–Pain and suffering and loss of amenities–Loss of future earnings–Damages–Quantum–Deformity and shortening of leg–Osteo-arthritis–Pain and suffering and loss of amenities–Loss of future earnings

The plaintiff suffered severe injuries as a result of a motor accident. In particular, he sustained severe injuries to his left leg and foot which left him with a deformed and short leg. His ankle and the joints in his foot were affected, showing signs of osteo-arthritis which would get worse with time.

The trial judge awarded $10,000 to the plaintiff for pain and suffering and loss of amenities and $5,000 for loss of future earnings. The plaintiff appealed against the awards of damages made by the trial judge, contending that the amounts awarded were too low.

Held, allowing the appeal:

(1) It was impossible to standardise damages for personal injuries, but the assessments made by the courts over the years formed some guide to the kind of figure which was appropriate and which the appellate court would follow in the light of the special facts of each particular case: at [14].

(2) The award of $10,000 was too low and was so much out of line with a discernible trend or pattern of awards in reasonably comparable cases that it must be regarded as having been a wholly erroneous estimate. An award of $20,000 was more appropriate: at [15].

(3) Osteo-arthritis was an important factor which must be taken into consideration when assessing the appellant's future loss of earnings. There was a strong possibility that many years before the appellant reached the retiring age, the pain in his left ankle and foot would be so crippling that he might not be able to work at all. The judge had not given sufficient weight to this very important factor. As such, the award of $5,000 for loss of future earnings was too low and the sum of $10,000 would be awarded instead: at [18] and [19].

Bird v Cocking & Sons Ltd [1951] 2 TLR 1260 (folld)

Jag Singh v Toong Fong Omnibus Co Ltd [1964] MLJ 463 (folld)

Rushton v National Coal Board [1953] 1 QB 495 (folld)

H E Cashin (Murphy & Dunbar) for the appellant

M Coomaraswamy (Rodyk & Davidson) for the respondent.

F A Chua J

1 This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the award of damages made by Ambrose J in an action brought by the plaintiff against the defendants for damages for personal injuries suffered by the plaintiff and caused by the negligence of the defendants' servant in driving a motor bus on 23 September 1963...