Inabari and Another v Sapat and The Independent State of Papua New Guinea [1991] PNGLR 427

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Court: National Court
• Judge: Salika J
• Judgment Date: 17 April 1991
• Citation: [1991] PNGLR 427
• Judgment Number: N973
• Year: 1991

Full Title: Inabari and Another v Sapat and The Independent State of Papua New Guinea [1991] PNGLR 427

National Court: Salika J

Judgment Delivered: 17 April 1991

N973

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

INABARI AND ANOTHER

V

SAPAT

AND THE INDEPENDENT STATE OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA

Wewak

Salika J

17 April 1991

DAMAGES — Fatal accidents — Measure of — Loss of expectations of life — Infant child — Conventional sum — Award of K1500.

DAMAGES — Fatal accidents — Measure of — Funeral expenses — Reasonable expenses — Includes reasonable customary obligations — Wrongs (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Ch No 297), s 28 (2).

The Wrongs (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Ch No 297), s 28 (2), provides:

"... damages may be awarded in respect of medical expenses incurred as a result of the injury causing the death, together with reasonable expenses of the funeral or cremation of the deceased person (including the cost of erecting a headstone or tombstone over the grave of the deceased person) if those expenses have been incurred by one or more of the parties for whose benefit the action is brought."

In an action under Pt 5 of the Wrongs (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Ch No 297), by the father of an infant aged twenty-one months at death, a claim was made for funeral expenses including expenses to cover customary obligations.

Held

(1) Expenses envisaged by s 28 of the Wrongs (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Ch No 297) are reasonable funeral expenses or expenses reasonably expected to be incurred during a funeral and include reasonable expenses incurred in satisfying customary arrangements, obligations and ceremonies.

(2) Reasonable funeral expenses in the circumstances should be allowed at K2,406, which sum included outlays for, inter alia, clothes for the deceased, food for fourteen days after burial at K50 per day and motor vehicle hire for a period of seven days.

(3) Damages for loss of expectation of life should be assessed at K1,500.

Cases Cited

Hart v Griffiths-Jones [1948] 2 All ER 729.

Rokan Bayava v Minisang Wankiar and Lufa Local Government Council [1978] PNGLR 391.

Stanton v Ewart F Youlden, Ltd [1960] 1 All ER 429.

Vian Guatal v The Independent State of Papua New Guinea [1981] PNGLR 230.

Statement of Claim

These were proceedings in which the father of an infant claimed damages for loss of expectation of life, solatium and funeral expenses following the death of the child in hospital.

Counsel

Y Yagi, for the plaintiff.

J Puringi, for the defendant.

17 April 1991

SALIKA J: This matter was instituted by way of a writ of summons by Philip and Scholastica Inabari the plaintiffs against Graham Sapat, the first defendant and The Independent State of Papua New Guinea the second defendant.

The plaintiff brought this action pursuant to the provisions of s 25 of the Wrongs (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Ch No 297) on behalf of the estate of the deceased Mario Francis Inabari who was the plaintiff's child.

The first defendant was a qualified nurse at the Boram General Hospital employed by the second defendant. The second defendant owns, manages or operates the Boram General Hospital which provides specialist medical service, advices, care and attention to the public.

The brief facts of the case are that on 13 June 1989 at 1.00 am the plaintiff's one year and nine months old son Mario Francis Inabari fell ill. He was taken to the Boram General Hospital for treatment. There was a massive discharge of blood from the child's anus. As a result the child was weak and in pain and distress when presented before the first defendant who was on duty.

After persistent pleas by the plaintiffs to have the child admitted to hospital for specialist care and attention the first defendant refused. He instead prescribed and supplied tablets to the plaintiffs to administer every six hours to the child. The plaintiffs left the Boram General Hospital with the child.

At 5.00 am of the same morning the child was brought back to the same hospital before the first defendant with the same aching signs and conditions. The child was placed on a table without any medical care, attendance, advice or treatment being given by the first defendant. The child died at 5.40 am.

The plaintiffs alleged negligence particulars of which were:

(a) the first defendant failed to administer any or any proper basic nursing procedures.

(b) the first defendant failed to observe or to heed or take any reasonable steps to investigate the complaints made on behalf of the deceased to his condition.

(c) the first defendant failed to observe or to act upon or to investigate properly or at all the obvious and serious deterioration in the condition of the deceased whilst under his care and attention.

(d) the first defendant failed to observe or heed or take any reasonable steps to consult, seek or refer the deceased for specialist medical advice care or attention.

(e) the first defendant failed to care, seek or take any reasonable steps to admit the deceased to the hospital in the circumstances; and

(f) the first defendant failed to procure at first instance specialist advice, attention or care on the deceased's obvious and serious condition.

The plaintiffs argued that as the first defendant was employed by the second defendant, the second defendant is vicariously liable for the negligence of its servant or agent.

The plaintiffs are now claiming, interests and costs.

An autopsy dated 18 August 1989 described the case as one of acute bacillary dysentery with bronco-pneumonia. The plaintiffs in this action are the parents and customary personal representatives of the child.

A default judgment was obtained against the defendants on 11 July 1990 after the defendants failed to file a defence. The matter is now before this Court for assessment of damages only.

The plaintiffs called two witnesses in support of the claim in relation to the expenses incurred as a result of the death and customary obligation during the funeral.

One of the plaintiffs Philip Inabari gave evidence that on the day of the death of his son he rang the Sacred Heart Brothers to make a coffin. The coffin was made and he paid K63 for it. Receipt No 13 dated 13 June 1989 was issued for the payment of the coffin.

He also gave evidence that on the same day, 13 June 1989, he hired two vehicles from the Sacred Heart Brothers, a Toyota Dyna Truck and a Daihatsu truck. He paid a total of K1,680 for the hire of the vehicles. He used the vehicles for transporting the body of his son and twenty-four boys from Boystown Wewak. He had to buy food to feed people at the village who came to mourn and pay respect. The witness...