0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Samuels v Benning

27 May 2002
The issues

Road traffic – PTSD – future loss – mitigation.

The facts

The Claimant was injured in an RTA in November 1995. He suffered head injuries and soft tissue injuries to neck and back, together with an undisplaced fracture of the right acetabulum and a fracture of the right superior pubic ramus. He also suffered PTSD with impaired memory and concentration and personality change. He returned to work eventually on light duties, but his employment was terminated in July 1996. Liability for the accident was not in issue. At Trial the Judge awarded £20,000.00 for general damages, just under £46,000.00 for past losses and £920.00 for future loss of earnings. The Judge found that the Company for which the Claimant worked would have been taken over and that the Claimant was likely to have stayed in the new Company’s employment until July 1999 approximately. The Judge found that the Claimant had had sufficient time to re-train for a new job, but that all he had done was enrol on a degree course which was not likely to have given him the chance of doing what he apparently wanted to do, namely teach. The Judge found that the Claimant should have looked for a less ambitious course, since he had only ever done manual work.

The Claimant Appealed.

The decision

1. The Judge was entitled to take the view he did of the Claimant’s likely future employment.

2. Whilst the Court saw there was some force of the Defendant’s argument with regard to lack of mitigation, the Court had to bear in mind that the Claimant was an innocent victim and that he had suffered a personality change evidenced by evidence from a Clinical Psychologist, a Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon, a Pain Management Consultant and a Consultant Neurologist. He was therefore always going to be disadvantaged on the open labour market. A lump sum was appropriate – of £35,000.00 (a figure of just under 3 times the figure which the Court of Appeal recognised was reasonable for the Judge to find that the Claimant would have earned on an annual basis).

focus on...

Legal updates

Reinstatement for property damage losses – when does it apply?

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the correct test for measuring the indemnity for property damage losses and has provided useful guidance on whether an insured needs to intend to reinstate the property to its pre-loss condition.

View

Legal updates

Coronavirus (COVID-19) insurance considerations

With instances of COVID-19 rapidly increasing throughout the UK, many businesses are considering the options available to limit staff and customer exposure to Coronavirus.

View

Legal updates

Insurance annual review 2019-2020

Welcome to our review of 2019 as we look ahead to what is on the horizon for the insurance sector in 2020.

View

Legal updates

Financial Services – ‘Duty of Care’ Bill: consumer protection or damp squib?

The Financial Services Duty of Care Bill (the “Bill”) was introduced into the House of Lords in October 2019 and had its second reading on 9 January 2020.

View

The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

mailing list sign up



Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up