![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
Scottish Sheriff Court Decisions |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Sheriff Court Decisions >> Dingwall v. Todd [2006] ScotSC 25 (24 March 2006) URL: https://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotSC/2006/25.html Cite as: [2006] ScotSC 25 |
[New search]
[Context]
[Printable version]
[Help]
SHERIFFDOM OF GRAMPIAN HIGHLAND AND
Case Reference No:
A601/05
|
|
![]() JUDGEMENT![]() of SHERIFF ALEXANDER POLLOCK |
|
|
in the cause |
|
|
ALEXANDER DINGWALL |
|
|
Pursuer |
|
|
against |
|
|
HILDA TODD |
|
|
Defender |
Act: Miss Boyle, Solicitor,
Glasgow
Alt: Mr Thomson, Solicitor,
The
Sheriff, having resumed consideration of the proof and whole cause,
FINDS IN
FACT that:
1. The
pursuer resides at Fir Chlis, Craggie, Daviot,
2. The
defender resides at 32 Sunnyside,
3. On
4. For
the purposes of this action only, liability for the said accident has been
admitted by the defender.
5. As
a result of the collision the pursuer's vehicle came to a very abrupt
stop. The pursuer was jolted forwards,
suffering injury.
6. The
pursuer was also involved in a road accident in 1980. He sustained a T6 spinal injury at that time,
and has had complete paralysis and sensory loss from the T6 level down for the
last 24 years. Because of said previous
spinal injury, he is restricted to a wheelchair. He is able to drive his motor car by means of
hand controls.
7. On
the night of the accident, when trying to get out of his wheelchair, the
pursuer's back went into a spasm. The
day following the accident the pursuer saw his GP, Dr. Keith Jones, Ardlarich
Medical Practice,
8. The
pursuer's back spasm lasted for some two days.
Getting out of bed was uncomfortable, and for two or three nights the
discomfort was such as to disrupt the pursuer's sleep.
9. The
pursuer suffered from constant headaches for three days after the
accident. Thereafter he suffered from
occasional headaches for a further four days or so, particularly through the
day while at work. With the assistance
of painkillers, the pursuer had taken no time off work following the accident.
10. For
two weeks after the accident the pursuer suffered severe neck pain. During that period he was taking painkillers
every day.
11. Although
the main discomfort had settled after two weeks, the pursuer continued to
suffer some pain and discomfort thereafter.
To push his wheelchair he needed to lean forward, thereby putting
pressure on his neck and causing strain on the neck muscles. After a few hundred yards, he was liable to
suffer pain, chiefly in the neck and shoulders, but also in the back.
12. The
pursuer's mobility was also restricted as regards transferring in and out of
bed and getting in and out of his car.
Driving as such was not too much of a problem, although he did
experience discomfort if carrying out any slow movements or manoeuvres.
13. The
pain suffered by the pursuer restricted his ability to accompany the family
dogs when they were being exercised within his own ground or on walks
elsewhere.
14. The
pursuer also required to take particular care as to how he sat when eating a
meal or watching television, since otherwise his shoulders and neck would get
sore. Likewise, at work, he had to be
particularly careful for some six to eight weeks as to his posture at the
keyboard.
15. The
pursuer's social life was somewhat restricted.
His leisure activities, apart from the dogs, tend to be
house-based.
16. No
physiotherapy was required. The pursuer
took painkillers as and when necessary.
17. All
the pain and discomfort attributable to the said accident on
18. On
19. The
pursuer also felt back pain to a minor degree over the T6 region. This was non-intrusive. In particular, he suffered some minor needles
at his mid-thoracic spine region at Christmas time, 2004. The non-intrusive mid-thoracic spinal pain
was related to the previous spinal injury at the T6 level.
20. Reasonable
compensation for the pursuer's pain and suffering in respect of the said
accident on
Finds
in Fact and Law:
1. That
the pursuer, having sustained injury and damage as a result of the fault and
negligence of the defender, is entitled to reparation from the defender .
THEREFORE:
SUSTAINS
the second plea-in-law for the pursuer; SUSTAINS in part the third plea-in-law
for the pursuer; REPELS the second plea-in-law for the defender; SUSTAINS in
part the third plea-in-law for the defender; DECERNS against the defender for
payment to the pursuer of the sum of ONE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED POUNDS
(£1,600.00) STERLING, with interest thereon at the rate of six per centum per annum from 30th
September 2004 until the date hereof, and on that whole sum at the rate of
eight per centum per annum from the date hereof until payment; RESERVES meantime the question of
expenses; APPOINTS parties to be heard
thereon; and ASSIGNS 5th
May 2006
at
"A. Pollock "
Sheriff
Note
Introduction
[4] The
pursuer gave evidence on his own behalf.
Closing
Submissions for Pursuer
[6] Miss
Boyle then referred to a number of cases as providing guidance on a suitable
sum for solatium. She cited in
particular the following
[9] She
invited the court to reserve the question of expenses.
Closing
Submissions for Defender
[14] With regard to authorities, Mr Thomson referred the court to the
Guidelines of the Judicial
Studies Board (6th Edition) for
review
of the
authorities cited by the pursuer, Mr Thomson referred the court to one further
case, namely Fairley -v- Thomson
(September 2004, Edinburgh Sheriff Court,unreported).
Conclusions
by the Court
[21] Of the various cases cited by Miss Boyle in support of her
suggested figure of £3,000, it is apparent that in Ennis -v- Abba Blinds, Pugh -v- Scott, and Urquhart -v- Coakley Bus Company, the injuries sustained were both
longer-lasting and more significant in their impact. The circumstances of Clark -v- Stoddart are arguably more similar, but there also the
injuries were more significant (with one more week of acute pain, and
subsequent pain in the lower back - although not enough to seek further
treatment or physiotherapy). Likewise,
in Fairley -v- Thomson, cited by Mr
Thomson, the pain and suffering may be fairly regarded as having been worse
than that suffered by the present pursuer.
The Judicial Studies Guidelines for England and Wales point to an
appropriate award lying somewhere between £500 and £2,000.
[24] I have still to be addressed on expenses.