THERESA FARR
v
MARTIN NUTTALL
CASE REPORT
Damages assessed at £2.7 million
1. Miss Theresa Farr was born on the 8th April 1978 and so was 16 at the
date of the accident on the 28th June 1994. She was 23 at the time of her
trial before Mr Justice Nelson in November 2001.
LIABILITY
2. The Claimant was injured in a car crash in 1994. Judgment
was entered on the 31st July 2000.
QUANTUM - Pain, suffering and loss of amenity
3. Miss Theresa Farr sustained a very severe brain injury, as
a result of which she is unable to live independently, or work; she needs
guidance, supervision and prompting for all daily activities. She is only
safe to be left alone for brief periods of time, and she needs constant help
for organisation, planning, keeping a diary, and reminders to look at her
diary. She has major cognitive problems, particularly with regard to memory.
She also has a significant visual defect which interferes with her life.
Damages were agreed at £120,000 inclusive of interest.
QUANTUM - Financial loss
Past rehabilitation
6. The Claimant was a resident at the Transitional Rehabilitation
Unit from October 1995 to May 1997, following which she attended on a number
of days a week. The Defendant argued that the period over which the Claimant
was resident at TRU, and the level of charges, were excessive. This suggestion
arose out of the view of the neuropsychologists, that TRU should have clear
goals if they wish to continue rehabilitation; however, the agreed care
experts' report seemed to accept that TRU were providing care, as distinct
from positive rehabilitation. The judge rejected the submission that TRU
had been efficient and had overcharged. He awarded £266,791.
Past care
We argued on behalf of the Claimant that the care given by the family
was of such a high standard that there should not be a Housecroft v Burnett
discount, citing Evans v Pontypridd Roofing 2001, in which the Court of Appeal
held that there is no conventional discount because each case depends on its
own facts. The judge decided that a 20% discount was appropriate, and awarded
£57,196.
Future loss of earnings
The claim was presented on the basis that the Claimant would have
re-sat exams, gone to art school, and then worked as a commercial artist or
graphic designer; the alternative of teachers' earnings was given. The Counter-schedule
asserted that the Claimant's approach did not face the reality of the evidence,
namely that she had low grades at GCSE, and was no better at art than other
young people. The Defendant suggested that the claim should be calculated
instead on the basis of the average female manual earnings figure from the
New Earnings Survey. The difference was between £392 a week as an artist,
£350 as a teacher, and £184 from the NES.
The Court had to decide what weight to attach to the statements which painted
a picture of an enthusiastic girl who was developing an interest in art,
and who probably had the character to succeed in a career. Her art teacher
described her as above average in her group, and emphasised that, even though
Theresa was not particularly gifted academically, she had the potential
to develop her skills and to pursue a career in art; in fact it was the
teacher who broached the subject with the Claimant. Agreed at £280,000.
Future care
The Claimant had bought a new home, with her mother and step father,
and is now settled there; it comprises an old farm with a converted outbuilding
or cottage close by. She still attends TRU three days a week, and has 24 hour
care. The experts started from the agreed position that the Claimant currently
received 24 hour care, and they agreed to work on the premise that the current
input from TRU is essentially a long-term care regime. The judge awarded £1,798,162,
plus £77,500 for case management.
NOTES
The payment into court was £1.4 million.
BILL BRAITHWAITE Q.C.
Exchange Chambers
Liverpool and Manchester
