Alfred Jackson as Administrator of the Estate of Ennis Jackson Plaintiff v David Balcombe Defendant [ECSC]

• Jurisdiction: St Vincent and the Grenadines
• Judge: Mitchell, J
• Judgment Date: 13 June 2000
• Judgment citation (vLex): [2000] ECSC J0613-2
• Date: 13 June 2000
• Court: High Court (Saint Vincent)
• Docket Number: CIVIL SUIT NO.138 OF 1994

[2000] ECSC J0613-2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

CIVIL SUIT NO.138 OF 1994

Between:

Alfred Jackson as Administrator of the Estate of Ennis Jackson

Plaintiff

and

David Balcombe

Defendant

Mitchell, J

1 This is what would be called aFatal Accidents Act case. It was not much of a trial on the facts. The Defendant did not appear at the trial, nor was he represented by his solicitor of record or other counsel at the trial. The case is interesting only for the questions it raised about the requirements of the statute law of St Vincent when a deceased's estate is claiming damages for the wrongful death.

2 The Plaintiff sues in his capacity as Administrator of the Estate of his deceased son, Ennis Jackson. The deceased was riding his motor-bike on 15 September 1991. He was just 22 years old at the time. He had a passenger riding pillion with him. These three circumstances might normally be causes for some suspicion. However, all the evidence indicates that the deceased was lawfully riding his bikealong the main road when the Defendant's passenger van came around the corner going in the opposite direction at great speed, and over on the wrong side of the road, and collided with the deceased's bike. The deceased was badly injured and was taken by his father by chartered air transport to the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Barbados for treatment, but died from his head injuries 8 days later on 23 September 1991. The costs of transportation to and from Barbados, medical expenses, funeral expenses, and damages to the motor-bike amounted to a total of $13,963.52.

3 The deceased was employed at the Water and Sewage Authority as a meter reader at a monthly salary of about $1,000.00 at the time of his death. He lived at home with his parents and contributed $300.00 per month to his mother from his salary. He was the only one of his parents' 7 sons living at home. He had previously gone to secondary school, achieved a number of O-Levels, and was ambitious to succeed. Counsel submits that a proper award under this head, bearing in mind the obvious advanced age of the parents, would involve using a multiplier of 5. With an annual contribution paid to his mother of $3,600.00 per year, this would produce a sum of $18,000.00. However, it is more reasonable to assume that the major part if not all of the $300.00 of his financial contribution made by the deceased to his mother was to cover the cost of his own board and lodging at his parents' home and not for the support of his parents. There is no evidence that his parents were indigent or otherwise depended on his contribution to assist with their own upkeep. I am not satisfied that the Plaintiff has made out a claim for compensation of a dependent in this case. This claim is subject to other problems as I explain below.

4 The law in England governing the right of dependents of a person wrongfully killed to claim compensation for the financial loss they suffered, was codified in theFatal Accidents Act, 1846 and as subsequently amended. It allowed dependents to claim an amount that they could prove the deceased would have made for their needs out of his earnings during the "lost years." There were at common law no damages awarded to the family of the deceased to compensate them for the wrongful death. The court did not presume to put a financial value to a human life. Additionally, at common law, until Parliament intervened, the estate of a deceased killed in an accident was not entitled to claim real damages against the wrongdoer. The rule was actio personalis moritur cum persona, or that a personal action dies with the deceased person. Unless an injured person had brought his action and obtained a judgment before he died, his claim for damages failed. It was the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934 that in England enabled the estate of a deceased to recover real damages against the person who had wrongfully caused his death in an accident under the 3 heads of: loss of earnings, pain and suffering, and loss of expectation of life.

5 In St Vincent there is theCompensation for Injuries Act, Cap 83 of the 1991 Revised Edition of the Laws of St Vincent and the Grenadines. That Act came into effect on 3 July 1884, and has subsequently been...