Damages-Measure of damages-Injured person e~titled to, fu(/, fair. and rea-
sonable compensation for pain and sufjering and loss of [uture income

Negligence-Loss of future income=-Measureo] damages

Negligence-Pain and sufjering-Measure of damages,

When' a person is injured through the negligence ~f another he ii en-
titled to full, fair, and reasonable compensation for the pain and suffering
as well as loss of future income; but he is not entitled to perfect compen-
sation; the amount of compensation to be determined by using the rules of·
English jurisprudence as guides and not the Workmen's Compensation, Or-

                 dinance 1908.                                                                                                    .

Ahmed Hassan Abdel Moneim &: Brother; v. Heirs of ~b_ral#';' Khalil- AC

APP-42-1926; 1 S.L.R. 302.

Workmen's Compensation Ordinance 1908.·
Blake v. Midland Ry. (1852) 18 Q.B. 93:

Phillip v. L. & S. Ry. (1879) 5 Q.B.p. 78.

• Court: Davidson CJ. and Hamilton-Grierson,

Action

The material facts not found in the judgement of Halford.J. are
as follows:

The plaintiff suffered injuries in a bus accident. The bus was
owned by the defendant and driven by a driver employed by him.
As a result of the accident the plaintiff spent some time in hospital
and suffered a permanent disability of 30 percent. The parties agreed
on the special damages to be recovered by the plaintiff but differed on
the assessment of the general damages.

Advocate: Mr. Francoudi . . . for defendant

March 25, 1930. Halford J.: Special damage is agreed at the
sum of £E.39. As regards general damage, I had intended to apply
the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Ordinance 1908 in as-
sessing the quantum of damages in this case, but I now see that there
is a decree of the Court of Appeal in 1926 (The case referred to is:

Ahmed Hassan Abdel Moneim and Brothers v. Heirs of Ibrahim Khalil,
AC-APP-42-1926; 1 S.L.R. 302) which directs that in such cases
damages must not be assessed on this basis. I am obliged therefor to
decide this issue ex aequo et bono, being guided as far as is possible
by the rules of English jurisprudence.

It has been laid down that grounds of general damage are pain
and suffering by the plaintiff, as well as pecuniary loss arising from a
disability from future exertion, caused by a permanent injury; Blake v.
Midland Ry, (1852) 18 Q.B. 83, but in the latter case a dictum of
Parke J., is stressed; he laid down that juries should not, whenever an
accident occurs, match the unfortunate cause of it with the utmost.
amount equivalent to the mischief done, and he went on, "Scarcely any
sum could compensate" a labouring man for the loss of a limb, yet you
do not in such cases give him enough to maintain him for life.

In Philips v. L. & S.W. Ry. (1879) 5 Q.B.D. 78, 'Brett J., in
dealing with: compensation for personal injury and suffering, ruled that
per,fect compensation is impossible and unjust. But the plaintiff can
only sue once for compensation, which must be given him once and
for all. It must be full, fair and reasonable. Brett J., in the same
case also said loss of future income cannot be represented by the
value of an annuity of the same amount as the plaintiff's average in-
come (there was total incapacity in - this case) for the rest of his life.
Contingencies such as a fatal accident within: a year or bankruptcy
cannot be disregarded.