Moeliker v A Reyrolle & Co Ltd [1977] 1 WLR 132; [1977] 1 All ER 9
QUANTIFICATION OF DAMAGES
Facts
The claimant had been apprenticed to the defendant company when he was a teenager and had been employed by them ever since. He suffered a serious injury to his hand whilst at work, as a result of which parts of his left thumb and index finger were amputated. He was 45 at the time of trial. He required about 15 weeks off work to recover, then returned to the same job without a reduction in wages. However, he suffered long term pain and reduced function in his left hand, particularly in that he was unable to enjoy his favourite pastime of fishing in winter, although he still fished in summer. He brought a claim against the defendant for personal injury, and at first instance was awarded damages for both pain, suffering and loss of amenity and for loss of earning capacity.
Law Teacher writing support
Writing a law essay?
We choose a writer who is an expert in your area of law and qualified to at least the academic level you select. Most of our writers hold a master’s degree or PhD, have teaching experience, or both.
Send us your question and, if you wish, any marking criteria. We’ll write an essay to your instructions.
Issues
The claimant contended that both sums were too low; the basis on which damages for loss of earning capacity and for pain, suffering, and loss of amenity should be calculated was therefore in issue.
Decision/Outcome
The Court dismissed the appeal against the award for loss of earning capacity, setting out the factors which should be taken into account when quantifying this head of damages. These included whether there was a real or substantial risk that a plaintiff might lose his employment before the end of his working life and, if so, how far his injuries would disadvantage him in obtaining another job or one equally well paid. Where such a risk could be shown the assessment of damages should take into account: the extent of the risk; the time when the loss of employment might occur; factors affecting the plaintiff’s chances of securing alternative employment.
The award for pain, suffering, and loss of amenity was increased, taking into account the number of years for which the claimant would likely have to live with the injury.
