YEBOAH AND ANOTHER vs. M. YAMAK & CO. AND OTHERS [1962]DLHC1757

Date	1962-02-21
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1962]DLHC1757

DJABANOR J.

J. PREMPEH FOR THE PLAINTIFFS

KOFI SACKEY FOR THE DEFENDANTS.

[1962]DLHC1757
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" ><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">YEBOAH AND ANOTHER <o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">vs. <o:p></o:p><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#548DD4">M. YAMAK &amp; CO. AND OTHERS <o:p></o:p>[HIGH COURT, KUMASI]<o:p></o:p>[1962] 1 GLR 120<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.5pt;
padding:31.0pt 31.0pt 1.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow:yes">

DATE:<span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;;
mso-fareast-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;mso-bidi-font-family:&quot;Book Antiqua&quot;;
color:#00B0F0"> 21ST FEBRUARY, 1962.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

J.
PREMPEH FOR THE PLAINTIFFS<o:p></o:p>

KOFI
SACKEY FOR THE DEFENDANTS.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM: <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

DJABANOR J.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF
DJABANOR J.<o:p></o:p>On or about the 11th March, 1960, the first plaintiff Ama Yeboah
and her daughter Akua Fokuo, the second plaintiff, were passengers in a lorry
driven by the third defendant and owned by the first and second defendants. The
lorry was in collision with another lorry, and the plaintiff and her said
daughter sustained injuries. It is common ground that the defendants were
responsible in law for these injuries sustained through the negligence of their
driver, the third defendant.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The remaining question is that of damages. The plaintiffs jointly
are claiming £G49 8s. as special damages, and £G3,000 general damages. I will
first deal with the claim for special damages. Here the only claims contested
are those in respect of expenses in connection with the visit to the native
doctor. Counsel contended that the visit to the native doctor was quite
unnecessary. For my part I do not think that having regard to the background of
the plaintiffs, especially their way of life and the superstitions and
prejudices of the community from which they come, a visit in these
circumstances to the native doctor is unnecessary. Dr. Evans-Anfom admitted
that although he would not have advised a visit to the native doctor, he knew
that in cases of bone injury natives almost always consulted the native doctor.
I know that they perform wonders in bone healing. In the result, therefore, I
would allow these claims, and also the total of £G49 8s. in respect of special
damages.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>In every case of personal injuries there are two main factors
which have to be taken into consideration in assessing the damages. On the one
hand is the personal injury itself, involving pain and suffering, and the loss
of the pleasures of life: Heaps v. Perrite, Ltd.1(1) On the other hand there is
the financial loss, i.e. loss of earnings, how long the loss will continue,
considering any improvements to the health and working capacity of the
plaintiff.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>From the evidence of both the first plaintiff and the doctor I
find that the plaintiff is a young woman of 21 to 23 years old; she has two
children, one is the second plaintiff. Her injuries consisted of a knock on the
head (she said she gets periodical headaches), and a fractured pelvis for which
she was admitted in hospital for two months. This fracture may continue to give
pain, though at the time of the X’ray examination a year later, it had healed.
She limped very noticeably, which may be due to pain or to an injury to a
nerve. Her disability, assessed by the doctor at five per cent may increase
with time. She said her husband had left her because he said she was of no more
use to him. But the doctor says that there is no organic reason why she should
not partake of, e.g. sexual intercourse. If she could not, it may be due to
psychological reasons. But the pain which she is suffering may be aggravated by
certain activities including sexual intercourse. In fact it is obvious that she
had lost some very important pleasures of life, or at least the enjoyment of
the same would be diminished considerably. She certainly cannot dance. In
respect of financial loss there is evidence that she makes a profit as a baker
of £G200 per year, and that since she sustained this injury she had been unable
to bake. Baking in the primitive way entails much physical exertion in kneading
and bending and firing. I do not think she can do these as vigorously as
before. But I think that with some little help she can continue with this
trade, though possibly, with reduced profits.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Very little is told about the second plaintiff apart from the fact
that she had a fractured arm, which had completely healed. There is no
indication whether she was admitted in hospital, and for how long. No doubt she
suff</main>