The widow of a man who died after sustaining a fall at work has successfully appealed against aspects of the trial judge's decision on how damages should be calculated.
The man worked as a chef in a public house. While at work one evening, he tripped on a raised metal strip on the floor and fell onto a table. After experiencing worsening pain, he was diagnosed with sepsis six days after the accident. He died from the infection two months later.
His widow brought a personal injury claim. His employer admitted liability for the fall but disputed that it had caused the infection. However, the trial judge found it more likely than not that he had suffered a skin break when he collided with the table, allowing the infection to enter. The judge found that, had he lived, the man's life expectancy would have been reduced by nine years on account of his obesity. The judge also made an award of £6,358 for the widow's loss of financial dependency.
The widow appealed against the judge's finding on life expectancy and the calculation of the financial dependency award. The employer appealed against the finding that the infection had been caused by the fall.
Rejecting the employer's appeal, the High Court found that the judge had given clear reasons for preferring expert evidence on behalf of the widow, and had reached a conclusion on the cause of the infection that was consistent with the evidence presented to him.
Upholding the widow's appeal on the issue of life expectancy, the Court noted that the employer's expert had contended for a reduction of eight to ten years, whereas the widow's expert had considered that a reduction at the lower end of that range was appropriate because the man had not been obese from an early age. The trial judge had preferred the evidence of the widow's expert, and his decision to adopt a figure of nine years could not reasonably be explained or justified. The only reasonable outcome of his consideration of the evidence was that the reduction should be eight years.
The Court also upheld the widow's appeal against the level of the award for loss of financial dependency. The case was not exceptional and there was no reason to depart from authority provided by previous cases on the subject. The award was increased to £67,033, including interest to the date of the trial. However, the judge had been entitled to reject the widow's claim for loss of financial dependency after the man's hypothetical retirement at the age of 73. It was for her to prove the claim, and she had failed to do so.