Irma Smith (Widow and Co-Administrator of the Estate of Ophiel Nathaniel Smith Aka Nathaniel Smith) Marinus Smith (Co-Administrator of the Estate of Ophiel Nathaniel Smith Aka Nathaniel Smith) Claimants v Omari Phillip Vaughn Jackson t/a Tropical Express Rentals Defendants [ECSC]

• Jurisdiction: Antigua and Barbuda
• Judge: MATHURIN, M,CHERYL MATHURIN,MASTER
• Judgment Date: 15 April 2011
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2011] ECSC J0415-1
• Court: High Court (Antigua)
• Date: 15 April 2011
• Docket Number: CLAIM NO. ANUHCV2009/0579

[2011] ECSC J0415-1

IN THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

Before:

Master Cheryl Mathurin

CLAIM NO. ANUHCV2009/0579

Between:

Irma Smith (Widow and Co-Administrator of the Estate of Ophiel Nathaniel Smith Aka Nathaniel Smith)

Marinus Smith (Co-Administrator of the Estate of Ophiel Nathaniel Smith Aka Nathaniel Smith)

Claimants

and

Omari Phillip

Vaughn Jackson t/a Tropical Express Rentals

Defendants

ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES

MATHURIN, M

1 This is an uncontested assessment of damages, judgment in default of defence having been entered against both defendants on the 12^th April 2010. The unfortunate history that gave rise to this claim is an accident in which Mr. Nathaniel Smith who was 39 years old, was fatally injured by the first named Defendant (Mr. Phillip) when he was driving his vehicle on Jonas Public Road on the 4^th October 2008. Mr. Smith died later on the same day.

SPECIAL DAMAGES

2 The Claimants have claimed the sum of $25,011.00 as special damages and have attached the relevant receipts for funeral expenses and obtaining Letters of Administration. I accept that evidence and the award is made accordingly.

GENERAL DAMAGES

3 The Claimants also seek to recover damages for loss of earnings is the lost years and for loss of expectation of life. At the time of his passing, Mr. Smith was earning the sum of $1,200.00 per week and it is claimed frequently worked overtime at a rate of time and a half. It is claimed that a substantial part of his income was spent for the benefits of his dependants and this would have continued had he not died. It is also claimed that he contributed substantially to the payment of medical treatment for his ill daughter.

4 The principles in calculating the award for loss of earnings was stated as follows in thePickett case as follows;

"The loss to the estate is what the deceased would have been likely to have available to save, spend or distribute after meeting the cost of his living at a standard which his job and career prospects at the time of death would suggest he was reasonably likely to achieve."

Additionally, the court must make the best estimate based on the known facts and prospects at the time of death.

5 The judgment of Benjamin J. in theAnna Modeste et al v Jacobs et al (GDAHCV2000/0583) addressed in detail the manner in which the court determines the annual salary which is the multiplicand used for calculating the lost earnings. He referred to Lord Scarman in Gammel v Wilson who confirmed the approach taken by Lord Wilberforce in Pickett's case;

"the amount to be recovered in respect of earnings in the "lost years" should be after deduction of an estimated sum to represent the victim's probable living expenses during those years. I think that this is right because the basis, in principle, for recovery lies in the interest which he has in making provision for dependents and others, and this he would do out of his surplus."

6 Benjamin J also referred to Connor LJ in the unanimous Court of Appeal judgment inHarris v Empress Motors Ltd (1983) 3 All ER 561

"However, where the deceased expended the whole or part of his net earnings on living expenses (such as rent, mortgage, interest, rates, heating, electricity, gas, telephone etc and the cost of...