Discounting Awards For Multiple Injuries

What is the correct approach towards damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity when multiple categories of injuries are suffered by a claimant?

This was the question considered by the Court of Appeal in Sadler v Filipiak (October 2011), in an appeal by the claimant against the general damages awarded by the trial judge.

The claimant's claim arose following a road traffic accident on 26 November 2006. The claimant had been the driver of a vehicle travelling with passengers to church when there was a frontal collision with the defendant's car travelling on the wrong side of the road in the opposite direction. One of the claimant's passengers was killed and the claimant suffered serious injuries, which were summarised as follows:

Transverse fracture of the mid femur on the left side Formatic dislocation of the right big toe Whiplash injury to the neck Blunt abdominal injury to the spleen Concussive head injury Multiple scarring to the face, arms and legs Blurred and patchy vision in the right eye following a blow to the front of the head Post-traumatic stress disorder The trial judge at first instance considered, as his starting point, reported previous awards, but decided that none of the "comparable" awards put to him adequately met the circumstances of the claimant's case, or her particular constellation of injuries. The trial judge did not consider it was appropriate to simply add up different amounts for each injury as set out in the JSB Guidelines, because the pain and suffering had occurred at the same time.

The trial judge felt that the claimant suffered considerable interference with her life over a period of about five years, reducing from an initial intensity in the first few months, that she would recover substantially but that she will be left with permanent scars. In reaching his award of £32,000, the trial judge stated "I do not accept that I can simply aggregate the figures in each category, however I come to them.... there must, it seems to me, be an element of overlap".

The Court of Appeal was asked to review the general damages award. It was argued that either the trial judge undervalued each of the individual categories of injury, or had applied too great a discount before arriving at his award of £32,000.

The Court of Appeal agreed that it was always necessary to stand back from the compilation of individual figures, whether guidance had been derived from previous, comparable cases, or from the JSB guidelines, and to...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT