Samuel Era v Susan Paru

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Judge: Woods J
• Judgment Date: 17 June 1994
• Citation: [1994] PNGLR 593
• Court: National Court
• Year: 1994
• Judgement Number: N1237

National Court: Woods J

Judgment Delivered: 17 June 1994

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

SAMUEL ERA

V

SUSAN PARU

Mount Hagen

Woods J

20 May 1994

17 June 1994

DAMAGES — Personal injuries — Misrepresentation to marry — Loss of virginity — Damages to status in society as an unmarried woman — Action known in law.

Facts

The respondent successfully claimed damages in the District Court for loss of her virginity to the appellant. She succumbed to his wishes upon a promise of marriage, which he breached. The respondent became pregnant following the sexual intercourse with him. The appellant averred that there is no such cause of action.

Held

1. This is clearly a case of personal injury. It is an injury to the respondent's status and her value as a future bride.

2. The cause of action is neither breach of promise to marry nor seduction, but one of injury to the respondent's virginity and, thus, to her status as an unmarried woman, arising from the appellant's misrepresentation to marry.

Cases Cited

Aisi v Hoala [1981] PNGLR 199.

Counsel

P Kunai, for the appellant.

F Pitpit, for the respondent.

17 June 1994

WOODS J: This is an appeal from the findings and orders of the Ialibu District Court on a civil claim for damages to the person and character of the respondent, whereby the appellant was ordered to pay compensation of K1,600 to the respondent.

In November 1992, the respondent, Susan Paru, filed a complaint in the District Court against the appellant, alleging that he had had an affair with her and, as a result, she was pregnant. The complainant sought damages caused to her virginity in the sum of K2,000. At the hearing of the matter in the District Court, the complainant brought evidence that the defendant had pressured her to come with him and had promised that he would marry her and, therefore, she had gone with him and had sexual intercourse with him. Following the sexual intercourse, she was pregnant. She said that she did this because of his promises to make her his wife and that now he was refusing to honour that promise. She had, therefore, suffered damages to her status in society and lost her virginity to him. This demeaned her in the eyes of the community, and she would have more trouble getting married. In the cross-examination of the complainant, the defendant did not deny the suggestion that he had...