TATIS TRUDGE FRANCIS v DONALD ALSON WILLIAMS

ST. VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CIVIL SUIT NO.224 OF 2001 BETWEEN: TATIS TRUDGE FRANCIS Claimant and DONALD ALSON WILLIAMS Defendant Appearances: Mr. Parnel R. Campbell a.c. for the Claimant Mr. Samuel E. Commissiong for the Defendant ,--,----------­ 2003: April 1 June 2 DECISION

[1]COTTI.£, MASTER: On December 14th 1989, Tans Francis. then a 9 year old girl was stn..rr:k by a truck driven b:J the Defendant, Donald Williams. She suffered horrible injuries. Her pelvis was fractured and there was extra peritoneal rupture of the bladder. The vesica urethral juncture was comPlrtely ruJiured. There was petroperitoneal haematoma and laceration of l1e vagina, posterior fourchette and left labia minora. The accident also caused extensi'le abrasions over the sUJXa pubic region, the inner aspect of the right thigh and over the right knee of this unfortunate young gin.

[2]Upon attaining her majority Tatis brought an action against the Defendant who permitted judgment to be entered against him in default of defence for damages to be assessed and costs. At the assessment of damages Tatis swore to an affidavit outlining the extensive medical management she has had to undergo since 1989. She exhibited medical reports from 12 doctors and a Psychiatrist. She has had to undergo many surgical procedures in several countries in an attempt to repair the damage done to her. Finally Dr. Padmore advised no more surgery. This was after Dr. Ellsworth Charles had aperated in 1989, Dr. Cecil Cyrus in 1990, Dr. Emtage in 1992 Dr Kiruluta in 1993 and 1999 and Dr. Padmore in 2000. [3J The best that could be achieved, even after all of the surgical procedures, is that Tans will suffer for the rest of her life from persistent leakage of Uline into the vagina. Dr Slater says that this will lead to increased risk of pelvic sepsis. Fertility wil be severely affected. Sexual dysfunction will continue to be amajor problem as partners may be repulsed by the presence of urine in the vagina. When she was seen by the doctor in November 2001 Tatis was still suffering pain.

[4]Tatis is now 23 years old. Dr. Rohan Deshong says that because of her urinary incontinence she will need to wear sanitary pads for the rest of her life.

[5]To .<IFI'Ie at an assessment of damages that will compensate her as far as money will do so IIIDegi1 with the general heads enunciated by Wooding CJ in the case of Comilliac v St.l.auiil (1965) 7WIR 491. These are: [i] The nature and extent of the injuries sustained; ~jJ The nature andl gravity of the resulting physical disability; [iii] Pain and sufferi1g; ff'lll L.oss of amentiies; [\I] r~e extent to Wbich pecuniary prospects were affected.

Th. HaturnlOf the Injuries

[6]The particutars of injuries are summarised above. I will not repeat them. Suffice to say they were extensive and severe. Counsel for the Defence suggested that this head of damages is anovelty that I should ignore. Idisagree. The Nature and Gravity of the Resulting Physical Disability

[7]Even after the multiplicity of medical and surgical procedures that she has endured the accident left Tatis with . a complete disruption of her distal urethra with the remnant opening into her vagina about 3cm proximal to where it should be at the introitus: When Dr. Deshong fried to examine her in December 2002 he was greeted by 'a torrent of urine leaking into her vagina'. She has large scars on both thighs, on her hips and buttocks. She has the long prominent surgical scar on her abdomen. Dr. Charles describes these as 'disfiguring'. Defence Counsel suggested that , make no award under this head of damages. He says that "...it is important for the effective presentation of the claim that the defendant and the court be made aware of... the full impact of the injuries to the claimant: (Personal Injury Pleadings 2nd ed. by Patrick Curran QC at para 1-036). He says that the claimant ought to have included details of the injuries in her pleadings. I disagree for two reasons. Rrstly, this case was commenced under the old rules. And in this case where the defendanl elected not to defend at alii find that the demands of the imperative to do justice be'tween the parties require that I disagree. The medical reports in this matter were procuedl at the instance of the defendant and his insurers. The claimant obtained the capietl, which were apperlied to her affidavit in support of her application for assessment of dt8J11ill9S, from the c:.ItEndant in the main. The defendant could have been under no misap~rehensions as to tie "full impad of the injuries to the claimanf.

Pain2f.nd Saffering

[8]Tatis initially spent a mOl}1n in the local bospital. Thereafter she has had to be operated on repeatedly fCM' complaints arising from tns accident. I was referred to the English case of Hughes v Goodall (1977) CA 100. There, the claimant suffered severe injuries including pelvic injuries resulting in permanent urinary incontinence. The Court awarded 20,000 pounds for pain and suffering. Defence Counsel says that I should make a similar award in this case, being careful not to convert pounds sterling into East Caribbean dollars. Britain has higher social and economic standards. I agree that awards should be at alevel that is consistent with awards in societies of similar states of development. , therefore '. , ~.' prefer to look at awards from the region. In Marcel Fevrier and Jenny Fevrier v Bruno Canchan and others (St Lucia High Court case 313 of 1989) the learned biaI Judge in 2002 awarded a sum of $150,000.00 for pain and suffering and loss of amenities to a 25 year old claimant who had suffered abrasions and superficial lacerations over the body and a fracture of the right femur which had necessitated surgery. The claimant had her right leg shortened by one inch as aresuH. Obviously the injuries to Tatis are more severe. Loss of Amenities I9] An obvious consequence of the injuries to Tatis is the effect that her condition will have on her enjoyment of those simple pleasures that mean so much. She is an attractive young lady whose reproductive organs have been severely impaired. Her ability to engage in satisfactory sexual congress is markedly diminished. Not only is there the physical presence on urine in the vagina but there is also the psychological impact that this has on a potential partner. This means that the ability to forge relationships with members of the opposite sex is .ired. Tatis, too, has to spend the remaining perhaps 40 to 50 years of her life with the kIIowledge of her inadequacy. Her prospects for marriage and child bearing have been drastically reduced. Dr. Slater tells us that "fertility will be severely atkted" and if. against the odds,. Tatis does get pregnant anormal delivery by the vaginal rOlie will not bt possible. Because of her urinary incontinence Tatis' ability to socialize nornally has beJsrI adversely aBected. Dr. Detmath offers the opinion that depressive illne,\S will be am.ot1Q the potential sequelae whlcl1 may face Tatis.

Loss.f Pecuniary'Prrospects

[10]Coum9!l for the defence ~rgues that this head of damages ought not to be considered as it has nd been pleaded. This argument was rejected in Cornilliac v St Louis. No such averment is necessary unless the claim for loss of pecuniary prospects was one for special damage, which it was not. Wooding CJ thought it "was but one of the class of items to be taken into account in the assessment of general damages and was very closely akin to the claim for loss of amenities." Her injuries and resulting disability have made Tatis sensitive ... ,:J.a~":Jl'fi.\-~~~:-...."'....L,..: I\;.\~ :'.. ~: '•. ~~_';.;,; ~ ._..... ' '. '.\ ' " ...:: :, . ~~; ~;' ,,\to! {_, . '!J ~.. ,r _It· '- '\ L' .~~,t;'l ., to room temperature. Her need for frequent voiding makes for some reduction in her • career prospects. Counsel for the claimant also would have it that her scholastic performance has been adversely affected and consequenHy her marketability in the job search but I consider this to be too remote. [11) In addition to the above heads I am also asked to make an award for the medication and sanitary pads that Tatis will require for the rest of her life. Counsel for the defence says that in the absence of an amendment to aver this loss specially it must not be considered. I consider this element of future loss to be an item of general damages. It must always be remembered that the aim of an award of damages is to compensate the claimant, in as far as money will do so, for the loss she suffered. The need to wear pads every day for the rest of her life is a clear result of the accident for which the defendant is responsible. So !too the incontinence medication she will require. She must be compensated for the Hiitional expense to which she will be put. I hold that she is to be awarded asum to cover lite cost of the medication and sanitary pads for three weeks each month for the expected !'fESt of her life. TTheAwards [12) 1n ani'ring at the awards I have !laken into account the uncertainties of life. I have also borne hl mind tha~ thare is some element of duplication in the awards under the various heads Cfld have <fsi}unted the amounts to reflect this. I considered merely making a global avtard but I h.a'!Je chosen to Stt out instead the amounts separately. For the nature and e$\ of the injU\'ies I award $20,000.00. For the nallJre and gravilt;s"of the resu'mg phYSical disability I award $30,000.00 For pain and suffering and loss of amenities I award $200,000.00 For loss 04 pecuniary prospects I award $5,000.00 For future medical expenses including sanitary pads I award $ 65,000.00. This makes a total of $320,000.00 but the claimant has already received an interim payment of $10,000.00 and so I award the claimant the sum of $310,000.00. --'- .--- .. ' - "'-- ,,~,~"",," ~"- "~... .".: .. - ..... ~',." .~ .... ,'" [13) I make no award for special damages as the defendant's insurers have already met these save for some $1,250.00 for later medical reports which I subsume under the award for medical expenses above. I award costs to the claimant in the amount of $35,000. ~ .(}JV4.

Brian S. ~ T~'->

Master

ST. VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CIVIL SUIT NO.224 OF 2001 BETWEEN: TATIS TRUDGE FRANCIS Claimant and DONALD ALSON WILLIAMS Defendant Appearances: Mr. Parnel R. Campbell a.c. for the Claimant Mr. Samuel E. Commissiong for the Defendant 2003: April 1 June 2 DECISION

[1]COTTI.£, MASTER: On December 14th 1989, Tans Francis. then a 9 year old girl was stn..rr:k by a truck driven b:J the Defendant, Donald Williams. She suffered horrible injuries. Her pelvis was fractured and there was extra peritoneal rupture of the bladder. The vesica urethral juncture was comPlrtely ruJiured. There was petroperitoneal haematoma and laceration of l1e vagina, posterior fourchette and left labia minora. The accident also caused extensi’le abrasions over the sUJXa pubic region, the inner aspect of the right thigh and over the right knee of this unfortunate young gin.

[2]Upon attaining her majority Tatis brought an action against the Defendant who permitted judgment to be entered against him in default of defence for damages to be assessed and costs. At the assessment of damages Tatis swore to an affidavit outlining the extensive medical management she has had to undergo since 1989. She exhibited medical reports from 12 doctors and a Psychiatrist. She has had to undergo many surgical procedures in several countries in an attempt to repair the damage done to her. Finally Dr. Padmore advised no more surgery. This was after Dr. Ellsworth Charles had aperated in 1989, Dr. Cecil Cyrus in 1990, Dr. Emtage in 1992 Dr Kiruluta in 1993 and 1999 and Dr. Padmore in 2000. [3J The best that could be achieved, even after all of the surgical procedures, is that Tans will suffer for the rest of her life from persistent leakage of Uline into the vagina. Dr Slater says that this will lead to increased risk of pelvic sepsis. Fertility wil be severely affected. Sexual dysfunction will continue to be amajor problem as partners may be repulsed by the presence of urine in the vagina. When she was seen by the doctor in November 2001 Tatis was still suffering pain.

[4]Tatis is now 23 years old. Dr. Rohan Deshong says that because of her urinary incontinence she will need to wear sanitary pads for the rest of her life.

[5]To .<IFI’Ie at an assessment of damages that will compensate her as far as money will do so IIIDegi1 with the general heads enunciated by Wooding CJ in the case of Comilliac v St.l.auiil (1965) 7WIR 491. These are: [i] The nature and extent of the injuries sustained; ~jJ The nature andl gravity of the resulting physical disability; [iii] Pain and sufferi1g; ff’lll L.oss of amentiies; [\I] r~e extent to Wbich pecuniary prospects were affected. Th. HaturnlOf the Injuries

[6]the particutars of Injuries are summarised above. I will not repeat them. Suffice to say they were extensive and severe. Counsel for the Defence suggested that this head of damages is anovelty that I should ignore. Idisagree. The Nature and Gravity of the Resulting Physical Disability

[7]Even after the multiplicity of medical and surgical procedures that she has endured the accident left Tatis with . a complete disruption of her distal urethra with the remnant opening into her vagina about 3cm proximal to where it should be at the introitus: When Dr. Deshong fried to examine her in December 2002 he was greeted by 'a torrent of urine leaking into her vagina'. She has large scars on both thighs, on her hips and buttocks. She has the long prominent surgical scar on her abdomen. Dr. Charles describes these as 'disfiguring'. Defence Counsel suggested that , make no award under this head of damages. He says that "...it is important for the effective presentation of the claim that the defendant and the court be made aware of... the full impact of the injuries to the claimant: (Personal Injury Pleadings 2nd ed. by Patrick Curran QC at para 1-036). He says that the claimant ought to have included details of the injuries in her pleadings. I disagree for two reasons. Rrstly, this case was commenced under the old rules. And in this case where the defendanl elected not to defend at alii find that the demands of the imperative to do justice be’tween the parties require that I disagree. The medical reports in this matter were procuedl at the instance of the defendant and his insurers. The claimant obtained the capietl, which were apperlied to her affidavit in support of her application for assessment of dt8J11ill9S, from the c:.ItEndant in the main. The defendant could have been under no misap~rehensions as to tie "full impad of the injuries to the claimanf. Pain2f.nd Saffering

[10]Coum9!l for the defence ~rgues that this head of damages ought not to be considered as it has nd been pleaded. This argument was rejected in Cornilliac v St Louis. No such averment is necessary unless the claim for loss of pecuniary prospects was one for special damage, which it was not. Wooding CJ thought it “was but one of the class of items to be taken into account in the assessment of general damages and was very closely akin to the claim for loss of amenities.” Her injuries and resulting disability have made Tatis sensitive … ,:J.a~”:Jl’fi.-~~~:-….”‘….L,..: I\;.\~ :’.. ~: ‘•. ~~ ‘;.;,; ~ . ….. ‘ ‘. ‘.\ ‘ “ …:::, . ~~; ~;’ ,,\to! {_, . ‘!J ~.. ,r _It· ‘-‘\L’ .~~,t;’l ., to room temperature. Her need for frequent voiding makes for some reduction in her • career prospects. Counsel for the claimant also would have it that her scholastic performance has been adversely affected and consequenHy her marketability in the job search but I consider this to be too remote. [11) In addition to the above heads I am also asked to make an award for the medication and sanitary pads that Tatis will require for the rest of her life. Counsel for the defence says that in the absence of an amendment to aver this loss specially it must not be considered. I consider this element of future loss to be an item of general damages. It must always be remembered that the aim of an award of damages is to compensate the claimant, in as far as money will do so, for the loss she suffered. The need to wear pads every day for the rest of her life is a clear result of the accident for which the defendant is responsible. So !too the incontinence medication she will require. She must be compensated for the Hiitional expense to which she will be put. I hold that she is to be awarded asum to cover lite cost of the medication and sanitary pads for three weeks each month for the expected !’fESt of her life. TTheAwards [12) 1n ani’ring at the awards I have !laken into account the uncertainties of life. I have also borne hl mind tha~ thare is some element of duplication in the awards under the various heads Cfld have <fsi}unted the amounts to reflect this. I considered merely making a global avtard but I h.a’!Je chosen to Stt out instead the amounts separately. For the nature and e$\of the injU\’ies I award $20,000.00. For the nallJre and gravilt;s”of the resu’mg phYSical disability I award $30,000.00 For pain and suffering and loss of amenities I award $200,000.00 For loss 04 pecuniary prospects I award $5,000.00 For future medical expenses including sanitary pads I award $ 65,000.00. This makes a total of $320,000.00 but the claimant has already received an interim payment of $10,000.00 and so I award the claimant the sum of $310,000.00. –‘-.—.. ‘ -‘ “‘–,,~,~””,,” ~”-“~… .”.: .. -….. ~’,.” .~ …. ,'” [13) I make no award for special damages as the defendant’s insurers have already met these save for some $1,250.00 for later medical reports which I subsume under the award for medical expenses above. I award costs to the claimant in the amount of $35,000. ~.(}JV4. Brian S. ~T~’-> Master

[8]Tatis initially spent a mOl}1n in the local bospital. Thereafter she has had to be operated on repeatedly fCM’ complaints arising from tns accident. I was referred to the English case of Hughes v Goodall (1977) CA 100. There, the claimant suffered severe injuries including pelvic injuries resulting in permanent urinary incontinence. The Court awarded 20,000 pounds for pain and suffering. Defence Counsel says that I should make a similar award in this case, being careful not to convert pounds sterling into East Caribbean dollars. Britain has higher social and economic standards. I agree that awards should be at alevel that is consistent with awards in societies of similar states of development. , therefore ‘. , ~.’ prefer to look at awards from the region. In Marcel Fevrier and Jenny Fevrier v Bruno Canchan and others (St Lucia High Court case 313 of 1989) the learned biaI Judge in 2002 awarded a sum of $150,000.00 for pain and suffering and loss of amenities to a 25 year old claimant who had suffered abrasions and superficial lacerations over the body and a fracture of the right femur which had necessitated surgery. The claimant had her right leg shortened by one inch as aresuH. Obviously the injuries to Tatis are more severe. Loss of Amenities I9] An obvious consequence of the injuries to Tatis is the effect that her condition will have on her enjoyment of those simple pleasures that mean so much. She is an attractive young lady whose reproductive organs have been severely impaired. Her ability to engage in satisfactory sexual congress is markedly diminished. Not only is there the physical presence on urine in the vagina but there is also the psychological impact that this has on a potential partner. This means that the ability to forge relationships with members of the opposite sex is .ired. Tatis, too, has to spend the remaining perhaps 40 to 50 years of her life with the kIIowledge of her inadequacy. Her prospects for marriage and child bearing have been drastically reduced. Dr. Slater tells us that “fertility will be severely atkted” and if. against the odds,. Tatis does get pregnant anormal delivery by the vaginal rOlie will not bt possible. Because of her urinary incontinence Tatis’ ability to socialize nornally has beJsrI adversely aBected. Dr. Detmath offers the opinion that depressive illne,\S will be am.ot1Q the potential sequelae whlcl1 may face Tatis. Loss.f Pecuniary’Prrospects