Mr. Ford admitted that the collision was due to his negligence, and Mr. Justice Humphreys awarded the girl's parents £300 damages under the Fatal Accidents Acts, 1846 and 1908.
This award was not in dispute in the present. appeal.
His Lordship also awarded £500 under the Law Reform Act to Mr.
Rose (as administrator of his deughter's estate) in respect of her pain uffering and the loss of a leg, ejected the claim so far as it related to damages for the shortening of the expectation of her life.
The Court of Appeal unanimously reduced the £500 damages for pain and suffering and the loss of the leg to the nominal amount of £22, with-
Out costs, but they differed as to Mr. Rose's cross-appeal for damages for the shortening of the expectation of her life. Lords Justices Slesser and Greene agreed with Mr. Justice Humphreys that damages were not recoverable under this head, but anticipated, or sooner, should make any difference.
How the damages were to be calculated was a question which that House had not to decide, for there had been no quarrel with the amount fixed by the Court of Appeal in this case of £1,000..As to the damages for loss of the leg, he thought that it must be taken that the award of £1,000 assumed a normal two-legged life. If so. no further damages could be given for that particular loss, He saw no difficulty as to the alleged duplication of damages under the Act of 1934 and the Fatal Accidents Act.
If those who benefited under the last-mentioned Act also benefited personally under the will or intestacy of the deceased their damages under those Acts would be affected, If they did not, there seemed no reason why an increase to the deceased's estate, in which they took no share, should affect the measure of damages to which they were entitled under the Act. For these reasons he was of opinion that the appeal should be allowed.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.