PNG Law Reports 1993
[1993] PNGLR 73
N1160
PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]
MONDO PAKAU
V
MOTOR VEHICLES INSURANCE (PNG) TRUST
Mount Hagen
Woods J
18 June 1993
22 July 1993
DAMAGES - Motor Vehicle accident - Back injuries - Elderly retired policeman - General damages K15,000 - Contributory negligence.
Facts
The facts are set out in the judgment. This case is reported on assessment of damages.
Cases Cited
Kuntu v Motor Vehicles Insurance (PNG) Trust (1991) unreported N996.
Pupti v Kudjip [1986] PNGLR 283.
Walpe v Motor Vehicles Insurance (PNG) Trust (1993) unreported N1133. 
Counsel
P Kopunye, for the plaintiff.
A Kandakasi, for the defendant.
22 July 1993
WOODS J: The plaintiff is claiming damages for injuries he received when he was involved in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on the Enga Highway between Porgera and Laiagam on 21 April 1990. The defendant admitted some liability for the damages and liability has been agreed at 70% against the defendant and 30% against the plaintiff.
The plaintiff is an elderly retired policeman. Calculating from the fact that he joined the police force in 1950 and retired in 1975, I would assess his age at about 60 years. 
Following the accident, he was admitted to Porgera Health Centre on 21 April 1990. After two days he was still bed-ridden and had very limited movement, so he was referred to Mount Hagen General Hospital where he was admitted on 23 April. He was diagnosed as having sustained compression fractures of the 11 and 12 vertebrae. He was treated with analgesics and advised to rest in bed for 6 weeks. He was discharged from the hospital on 30 April 1990.
When examined in July 1990, it was noted that he had pain over the fracture site and movements of the spine were restricted. Assessments of the disability ranged between 25% and 35%. Such disability would restrict his ability to carry out routine work like gardening and carrying of heavy loads. Other medical assessment made a year later noted that the disability would increase with kyphosis. It is noted that he would have to make more use of a walking stick. 
Of course, we must realise that we are dealing with an elderly man, so such restrictions or disability would be more pronounced. However, it is not that we are considering an elderly man who is completely dependent on rural labour for his livelihood. First, he is past the retiring age and normal life expectancy age, and he is a retired policeman on a pension. So whether by virtue of age or his work, he is at the age when he would be assisted in his life by his family and his pension. However, economic loss is not a factor in the claim, apart from the normal expectation of a retired village man to participate in the rural subsistence lifestyle.
Back injuries are notoriously difficult for courts to assess damages for, as it is very hard to really assess what the difficulty is. I am satisfied that there is some problem for a man of this age.
In the case Walpe v Motor Vehicles Insurance (PNG) Trust (1993) N1133, the plaintiff was a villager aged about 40 years and an amount of K12,000 was assessed for general damages. In Pupti v Kudjip [1986] PNGLR 283, a village woman who had a compression injury to the spine was awarded K20,000 general damages. In Kuntu v Motor Vehicles Insurance (PNG) Trust (1991) N996, an 18-year-old man with back and arm injuries received K18,000 general damages.
In the above assessments, the age of the plaintiff would have had some bearing on the assessment. For example, the 18-year-old would be restricted in many of the activities that a young man could and would be expected to participate in. Here we have an elderly man who would be leading a more sedentary lifestyle. However, he would have clearly suffered and continue to suffer some pain and inconvenience.
I assess a figure of K15,000 for general damages. This will be reduced by 30% to K10,500. I will allow interest at 8 percent from the date of the writ, being 19 November 1991, which calculates at K1,403.83.
I order judgment for K11,903.83.
Lawyer for the plaintiff: Kopunye Lawyers.
Lawyer for the defendant: Young & Williams.