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

Forgotten your password?

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

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


Legal updates

Non-payment of insurance premiums during the Coronavirus pandemic

The forced closure of many businesses as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Recent reports from the Office for National Statistics state that the economy was 25% smaller in April than it was in February this year.


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.


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