THE HIGH COURT
			1994 No. 4810 P
BETWEEN
WILLIAM HEATLEY 
			PLAINTIFF
AND 
WICKLOW URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL AND 
THE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BOARD 
			DEFENDANTS
			
JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Diarmuid B. O'Donovan delivered on the 3rd day of February, 1998

	The Plaintiff in this case is a forty-one year old married man, who hails from Co. Wicklow where he lives with his wife and four children, who range in age from six and a half years to five and a half months.  He is of farming stock and, prior to the events which gave rise to this claim, he worked as an independent contractor for Wicklow Farm Relief Services Limited, who are an organisation which, for appropriate commission, provides personnel to assist farmers and business men in the Wicklow area who require temporary or part-time assistance to carry out their farming or business activities.  In addition, the Plaintiff worked part-time as a self-employed disc jockey and sounds system engineer.  
	Before reviewing the evidence given before me at the trial of this action and my conclusions thereon I think it appropriate that I should say that I found the Plaintiff to be a most irritating and disconcerting witness.  He was garrulous, discursive and argumentative.  In particular, he seemed incapable of saying in one sentence what might inconveniently be said in many more.  Accordingly, I sympathise with the view of the witness, David Murphy, that he was unmanageable in the sense of being difficult to control and, indeed, is the view of Ms. Susan Tolan, the rehabilitation consultant that his personality might discourage would be employers.  However, while I have little doubt but that Mr. Heatley was given to exaggeration in virtually everything which he said, I think that, basically, he is an honest person, that he did his incompetent best to tell the truth as he believed it to be and, although I have some reservations about the reliability of some of the evidence which he gave; for example I think he may be mistaken as to the actual date of his accident and I am inclined to think that the termination of his business relationship with David Murphy was precipitated by Mr. Murphy rather than, as the Plaintiff himself would suggest, by Mr. Heatley himself.  I also think that Mr. Heatley's personality had more to do with the termination of that relationship than had the sequela of the injuries which he suffered, as he, himself seems to believe.  Nevertheless, as I say, I think that most of the evidence which he gave was honest and truthful and deserving of creditability.
	Mr. Heatley comes before the Court claiming damages by way of compensation for injuries alleged to have been suffered by him as a result of an incident which befell him at a church hill in the town of Wicklow at approximately 11.00 p.m. on the 6th October, 1992.  At least, he gave evidence that the incident of which he complained occurred at that time and on that date although it was put to him in cross-examination that he had advised his general practitioner, Dr. John Keating, and his orthopaedic surgeon, Mr. Eamon P.  Kelly F. R.C.S.I. that the incident had occurred on the 8th October, 1992 and, when they came to give evidence, both doctors agreed that the Plaintiff had, indeed, advised them that the incident of which he complained occurred on the 8th October.  Mr. Heatley did not or could not say how this discrepancy arose but, in my view, if I accept the accuracy of his account of the incident of which he complains; as I do, then it does not matter whether it occurred on the 6th October, or the 8th October.  In this connection, Mr. Heatley gave evidence that, on the evening in question, he had been out with his wife and eldest child travelling in a car which belonged to his wife.  He said that they arrived home at approximately 11.00 p.m.; his home then being at 3 Church Street, Wicklow, at which address he dropped his wife and child.  Then, because he anticipated that there might be difficulty in starting his wife's car on the following morning;  it having manifested problems with its battery on that day, he drove it to Church Hill and there parked it on an incline facing downhill at a point which was some one hundred yards from his home in Church Street.  Mr. Heatley said that he then set about walking home. and his route took him on to a footpath on the left hand side of Church Hill; a footpath which commenced at a point at which was located an electricity supply board's electric light pole.  Moreover, Mr. Heatley gave evidence that, at the material time, a white car was parked with its right hand wheels on that footpath facing that electric light pole and some five or six feet away from it and that he mounted the footpath at a point between that electric light pole and the parked car.  If he did, however, the Plaintiff says, he tripped and fell thereby suffering a variety of injuries.  He said that what caused him to trip and fall was the stump or remnants of an old E.S.B. pole which had been removed from the footpath some time previously.  In this regard, photographs were produced to me in which the Plaintiff identified the remnants of the old ESB pole which he maintained was responsible for causing him to trip and fall.  In addition, I had evidence from a Mr. P. O. Phelan, an architect and civil engineer, who inspected the remnants depicted in those photographs and who said that they were made of metal and, in his view, comprised the base of an old pole which had been removed.  Mr. Phelan also said that he took the dimensions of those remnants and that they were about eight inches in length and that, at their maximum height projected some three inches above the level of the footpath and at their lowest point barely one inch above the level of the footpath.  Although he did not take a precise measurement,  Mr Phelan thought that the remnants were located some six to eight inches from the electric light pole at the commencement of the path.  While conceding that the remnants in question were, indeed, the base of an old E.S.B. pole which had been removed some time previously, the Defendants took issue with Mr. Phelan's measurements.   Evidence was given on behalf of the Defence by a Mr. Martin McGettigan, then an acting area supervisor with the Electricity Supply Board, that, in fact, those remnants were located only four and a half inches from the electric light pole at the commencement of the path and that, at their highest point, the remnants only projected one and a half inches above the footpath and, at their lowest point, were virtually level with the footpath.  However, 
Mr. McGettigan conceded that, whatever their dimensions may have been, the remnants of the old pole were a potential danger for pedestrians; so much so that, when he first saw them on the 19th October, 1992, he immediately arranged to have them cordoned off and then instructed a local garage proprietor to remove them, which he did on the 20th October, 1992.  In this regard, I also had evidence on behalf of the Plaintiff, from Mr. Peter Johnston, an engineer, who, having had the opportunity of seeing the photographs of the remnants to which I have already referred, expressed the view that they undoubtedly constituted a trip hazard.  In the light of all this evidence, I am firmly of the view that the dimensions of the remnants in question are irrelevant to the issue on liability in this case.  Whatever their dimensions may have been, it is, in my view, manifest from the evidence of both Mr. McGettigan and Mr. Johnston that they constituted a trip hazard for pedestrians and, accordingly, I do not think that it much matters what size they were.  Moreover, in allowing a portion of the base of the old pole to project over the level of the footpath after that pole had been removed , I think that the Electricity Supply Board showed a gross disregard for the safety of pedestrians using that footpath.  Accordingly, if the incident of which the Plaintiff complains occurred in the manner described by him and, as I think that I have already indicated, I accept his evidence in that regard, then, in my view, it was attributable to negligence on the part of the Defendants for which they are liable in damages to Mr. Heatley.  In this regard, a number of suggestions were made on behalf of the Defence; firstly, that, because of certain inconsistencies between the Plaintiff's evidence and what he is alleged to have told his own doctors and Mr. McGettigan of the E.S.B. with regard to the circumstances of the incident which gave rise to this claim, I should reject the Plaintiff's account of events; secondly, that, because there was no need for the Plaintiff to mount the footpath on which he fell and that, in any event, even if he chose to mount it, it was not necessary for him to do so at the point at which the remnants of the old pole were located, he was, therefore, the author of his own misfortune and, thirdly, that had he being looking where he was going, the Plaintiff would have seen the remnants of the old pole projecting on the footpath and would have been in a position to avoid it and was therefore guilty of contributory negligence.  While I agree that there were some inconsistencies between the Plaintiff's evidence and what he appears to have said to other persons with regard to the circumstances of his fall, I do not consider that those inconsistencies were so significant that they would justify a complete rejection of the Plaintiff's basic complaint that he tripped on a projection on the footpath on which he was walking.  As for the suggestion that there was no need for the Plaintiff to mount the footpath at the material time, while that may well be true in the sense that there was no traffic about which would have prevented him from staying on the carriageway, he was quite entitled to walk on the footpath, if he chose to do so, and, accordingly, in my view, cannot legitimately be criticised for so doing.  As for the allegation of contributory negligence against the Plaintiff, it seems to me that, as he approached the footpath, the stump of the old pole would have been hidden from his view by the new pole until he was virtually on top of it and, therefore, I do not think that he can be blamed for not seeing it.  In any event, it seems to me that the remnants of the old pole which was responsible for the Plaintiff's fall would only have been seen by him if he had been looking to the ground as he walked along and I do not think that he was under any obligation to keep looking at the ground all the time.  Accordingly, I do not think that the Plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence.
	Mr. Heatley gave evidence that, as he fell, he put out his left hand to save himself, and, in so doing, his left hand struck a wall on the left hand side of the footpath on which he was walking and his head also came in contact with that wall.  He also said that he twisted his left ankle and fell to the ground and, in so doing, his body may have come in contact with the white car which was in front of him.  He said that, as a result of his fall, he was dazed for some minutes but that, eventually, he recovered to the extent that he was able to make his way home.  He said that, in the immediate aftermath of his fall, he was conscious of a bump on the top of his head, of pain in his left hand and wrist and a cut in the palm of his left hand, of stiffness of his left shoulder, of swelling of his left ankle and of pain in both ankles, more particularly in the left one.  However, he did not immediately consult a doctor and, indeed, it was not until a few days later, when he met his general practitioner, Dr. John Keating, outside his house and Dr. Keating asked him why he (the Plaintiff) was limping;  that  Mr. Heatley advised Dr. Keating of the fact that he had suffered a fall a few days earlier and of the injuries which he had suffered.  Dr. Keating then invited him to attend his surgery for an examination.  At that stage, Mr. Heatley said that, while the bump on his head and the cut on his left hand were not causing any problems, he was experiencing severe pain in his left wrist, left shoulder and left ankle and also pain in his back between his shoulders.  He attended 
Dr. Keating's surgery on the 16th October, 1992 and Dr. Keating gave evidence that, on that occasion, he noticed that the Plaintiff was limping, that he had an abrasion on his forehead and bruising of his scalp, that there was limitation of movements of his left shoulder and left ankle with associated pain, that his left hand was swollen and that there was tenderness of the thumb of the left hand.  Because he suspected that the Plaintiff might have suffered injuries which were more severe than were apparent, Dr. Keating referred him to St. Columcille's Hospital for x-ray examination and prescribed pain killing medication.  Mr. Heatley duly attended hospital where his left wrist and his left ankle were x-rayed and he was advised that there was a suspected fracture of the scaphoid bone in the left hand whereupon his left wrist was encased in a plaster of Paris case in which it was retained until the 11th November, 1992.  Though no boney injury was detected in the left ankle, a bandage was applied to the ankle which the Plaintiff wore for some months.  Thereafter the Plaintiff complained of pain in his left ankle and that it frequently gave under him while he was walking as a result of which he suffered several falls.  He also complained of pain in his left shoulder and left wrist and pain in his back which radiated into his right hip and down his right leg.  He said that the pain in his back was aggravated by long sitting.  Otherwise, however, he said that the balance of the injuries which he had suffered as a result of his fall cleared up within a few weeks without residual sequela.  However, because of his ongoing problems, he was referred to Mr. Eamon Kelly F.R.C.S.I., a consultant orthopaedic surgeon.  Mr. Kelly gave evidence that, in his opinion, Mr. Heatley had not suffered a fracture of the scaphoid bone in his left hand but, rather, suffered torn ligaments which, in effect, was a more serious injury than a fracture would have been.  In Mr. Kelly's view the injury which the Plaintiff suffered to his left ankle involved antro lateral laxity which accounted for the fact that the Plaintiff's left ankle was inclined to give way under him.  He found that the Plaintiff had a frozen shoulder although, in his view, the problems which the Plaintiff was experiencing with his left shoulder were more likely to be attributable to a neck injury than an injury to the shoulder itself  Mr. Kelly also noted tenderness of the Plaintiff's left wrist but, initially, found nothing wrong with the Plaintiff's lumbar spine on clinical examination other than some pain at the limit of straight leg raising on the right hand side.  Mr. Kelly prescribed physiotherapy for the Plaintiff which, apparently, helped to relieve some of the painful symptoms which he was experiencing in his left ankle although the ankle continued to give way under him on a regular basis.  However, Mr. Heatley said that he got no relief from physiotherapy for his back which continued to trouble him, as did his left shoulder, the area between his shoulders and his left wrist.  He complained of continuing pain in these areas which varied from time to time, that the pain in his back was aggravated by long sitting, that his neck was painful if he turned his head a lot, that he could not lie on his left hand side, that the pain in his left wrist was aggravated by lifting and, generally speaking, that he experienced greater pain in cold or wet conditions.  In June of 1993 Mr. Kelly arranged for x-ray examinations of the Plaintiff's lumbar sacral spine which showed that he was suffering from a condition of spondylolisthesis which, in Mr. Kelly's view, was a congenital condition and, therefore, not attributable to any injury which the Plaintiff had suffered as a result of the incident which gave rise to this claim.  Mr. Heatley gave evidence that, while he suffered an injury to his back as a teenager which gave rise to pain and discomfort for a few months, he was otherwise entirely asymptomatic with regard to his back until the happening of incident which gave rise to this claim and that it came as a total surprise to him when Mr. Kelly advised him that he was suffering from a congenital condition in the back.  In this regard, Mr. Kelly accepted that the Plaintiff could well have been asymptomatic with regard to his back in the years prior to his accident and could well have been able to undertake heavy labouring work during that period without difficulty. In this regard, in the light of the evidence given by Mr. Larry Tallon, Deputy Chief Agriculture Officer for Co. Wicklow, with regard to the nature and the extent of the work which the Plaintiff undertook at the behest of Farm Relief Services Limited during the eighteen months immediately prior to his accident, I am persuaded that the Plaintiff was entirely asymptomatic with regard to his back during that period and that, notwithstanding the congenital anomaly found by Mr. Kelly, he was capable of heavy labouring work.  However, I am also persuaded by the evidence of Mr. Kelly, which, as I interpret the evidence given by Mr. Harold J. Brown F.R.C.S.I., who gave evidence on behalf of the Defence, was accepted by Mr. Brown, that, as a result of the incident which gave rise to this claim, the pre-existing spondylitic condition of the Plaintiff's back was aggravated and rendered symptomatic whereby he now experiences the pain in his back of which he presently complains.  Furthermore, in the light of Mr. Kelly's evidence which, again, seems to me to be supported by that of Mr. Brown, I think the probabilities are that, were it not for the incident which gave rise to this claim, the Plaintiff's back would have remained asymptomatic until he reached his mid-50's and that he would have been capable of undertaking heavy labouring work up to that age.  Apart from the problems with his back of which he continues to complain, the Plaintiff gave evidence of persistent pain in his left wrist which prevents him from lifting heavy weights, of persistent pain and restriction of movement of his left shoulder and that his left ankle continues to give way under him although not as frequently as in the immediate aftermath of his accident.  In this regard, he was admitted to hospital in September 1993  where an arthroscopy of his right wrist indicated an injury to the ligaments of the wrist.  He was admitted to hospital again in the month of June 1995 where his left shoulder was manipulated under general anaesthetic and, at the same time, his left ankle was subjected to detailed examination.  As a result of the manipulation of the left shoulder, it was less painful and, in Mr. Kelly's view, the full range of movement was restored.  However, the Plaintiff, himself, complains that he still experiences pain in his left shoulder in cold weather.  Moreover, while he accepts he has few problems with his left wrist if he does not put it under any stress, he complains that, if he attempts to lift heavy weights, he experiences pain in his left wrist and he also complains that his left ankle continues to give way under him from time to time.  In this regard, recent radiographs of the Plaintiff's left ankle indicates the existence of early degenerative changes and, in the view of Mr. Kelly, these changes may progress to the extent that, in the fullness of time, the Plaintiff may require an arghrodesis of his left ankle although, as I interpret 
Mr. Kelly's evidence, this is more a possibility than it is a probability.  However, it seems clear from what Mr. Kelly says that, for the future, the Plaintiff is always going to have problems with his back, his left wrist and his left ankle and, in particular, his left ankle will always be liable to give way under him from time to time.  Accordingly, it is Mr. Kelly's opinion that the Plaintiff will never, again, be fit for heavy labouring work and, in particular, will never be fit to undertake the type of work which, before the incident which gave rise to this claim, he was accustomed to doing for Farm Relief Services Limited.  For his part, while he believes that the Plaintiff grossly exaggerates the on-going sequela of his injuries, 
Mr. Harold Brown accepts that,  as a result of on-going problems with his back, his left wrist and his left ankle, the Plaintiff is no longer capable of undertaking heavy labouring work and will never be able to do so.  In this connection, My impression is that the Plaintiff does exaggerate the effects of his injuries and I do not accept that he experiences as much pain and disability as he purports to.  In this regard, I am persuaded by the evidence of Mr. David Murphy, with whom the Plaintiff had a business association between the month of May 1995 and February 1996 that, contrary to what the Plaintiff, himself, maintains he did not manifest a variety of physical problems during that period.  However, in the light of the evidence of 
Mr. Kelly and of Mr. Brown, I do accept that the Plaintiff is permanently incapacitated from heavy labouring work and that he will always experience a certain amount of pain and discomfort in his back, his left wrist and his left ankle but, as I say, I am not convinced that it is or will be quite as bad as the Plaintiff, himself, would suggest.
	Apart from loss of earnings, the Plaintiff's special damage or out of pocket expenses are agreed in the sum of £1,503.96.  In addition, however, the Plaintiff claims loss of earnings to date and into the future.  In this connection, I am satisfied by the evidence of the Plaintiff, himself, and by that of Mr. Larry Tallon, who, at the material time, was manager of Wicklow Farm Relief Services Limited, that, during the year immediately prior to the incident which gave rise to this claim, the Plaintiff would have earned approximately £2,500 gross from his activities as a disc jockey and sounds system engineer and approximately £6,800 gross from work carried out on behalf of Wicklow Farm Relief Services Limited that is a total of approximately £9,300, or £179 a week, gross.  As I interpret the evidence of 
Mr. Joseph Byrne, the Actuary, given his family circumstances, the Plaintiff would have paid little or no tax on those earnings although he would have a liability for P.R.S.I.   Accordingly, I estimate that his pre-accident earnings were about £170 per week net.  I believe that, were it not for the injuries which he suffered as a result of the incident which gave rise to this claim, he would have continued to generate a similar income with, perhaps, some small increases on account of inflation and on account of the fact that the evidence of Mr. Tallon satisfied me that the probabilities were that Mr. Heatley's popularity with clients of Wicklow Farm Relief Services Limited was such that their demand for his services was likely to increase which, in turn, would augment his earnings.  In this connection, in the light of the evidence of Mr. Joseph O'Brien, the current manager of Wicklow Farm Relief Services Limited, it seems to me that, were it not for his accident, the Plaintiff would now be commanding an annual income of about £11,000/£12,000 from Wicklow Farm Relief Services Limited and an annual income of about £2,500 from his activities as a disc jockey and sounds system engineer.  Accordingly I think    that it was reasonable for Mr. Joseph Byrne, the actuary, to speculate, as he did, that, but for his accident, the Plaintiff's annual earnings to date would have increased proportionally to £14,000 per annum gross, which I understand would be the equivalent of £224 per week net and that, therefore, his net loss of earnings to date are approximately £52,000.  However, from this there falls to be deducted the sum of £21,900 which I understand is the amount of social welfare payments which Mr. Heatley has received since his accident.  In addition, certain payments were made to him by Mr. David Murphy during the period of their association between the months of June 1995 and February 1996.  Mr. Murphy suggested, in evidence, that those payments totalled £5,550 but it is clear that that figure includes a sum of £900 in respect of a computer which the Plaintiff sold to Mr. Murphy.  Moreover, as I interpret Mr. Murphy's evidence, a sum of £50 per week, which he paid to the Plaintiff during the month of June, July and August of 1995 was more in the way of expenses than income.  The Plaintiff does not accept that some of the payments made by Mr. Murphy to him from September 1995 to February were as large as Mr. Murphy would suggest that they were and the Plaintiff additionally suggests that some of the payments which Mr. Murphy purports to have made to him during the period September 1995/February1996 were, in fact, paid to his wife and, accordingly, should not be considered to be a portion of the Plaintiff's income.  I found it impossible to choose between the evidence of Mr. Murphy and the Plaintiff with regard to these payments and, accordingly, I will somewhat arbitrarily allow that the Plaintiff has to give credit for £3,000 in respect of payments made to him by Mr. Murphy.  In addition, however, I am not convinced that the nature and extent of Mr. Heatley's injuries were such that they justified his disposing of the equipment which he used in association with  his activities as a disc jockey and sounds system engineer and his abandonment of that career.  I would accept that, as a result of his injuries, he would be incapacitated from moving some of that equipment, but I would have thought that he could have minimised his losses by paying someone to move the equipment for him.  Mr. Heatley said in evidence that he sold a portion of his musical equipment in August 1993 because, by that time, he had lost contact with the musical business.  That was only nine months after his accident and, to be quite frank, I think that it was a bit premature for the Plaintiff to decide to end his musical career at that time.  I think that, with a little more effort on his part; an effort which his legal obligation to minimise his losses required of him, he could have salvaged some of his earnings from his musical career and I think that the Defendants are entitled to a further credit on that account.  In this regard, I can only speculate on what the Plaintiff's net earnings might have been had he resumed his musical career with the assistance of someone to move his equipment for him.  However, I doubt that it would have been less than 50% of what he had been earning from that activity before his accident, indeed, it may well be that I am being overly generous to the Plaintiff to suggest that it would be as little as that.  However, I will allow that, since his accident and notwithstanding his injuries, the Plaintiff had a capacity to earn an average of £1,000 per annum from his musical activities i.e., £5,500.  I think that the Defendants are entitled to credit in that sum against the Plaintiff's claim for loss of earnings to date.  In the light of the foregoing, I will assess loss of earnings to date in the sum of £21,600.  
	In so far as the Plaintiff's claim for loss of earnings into the future is concerned, in the light of the medical evidence given before me, I am satisfied that, were it not for the injuries suffered by him as a result of the incident which give rise to this claim and notwithstanding the pre-existing condition of spondylolisthesis in the lumbar spine from which he suffered, the Plaintiff would have continued to carry out heavy labouring work until his mid-50's and, as I think I have already indicated, the probabilities were that he would have continued to generate an annual income of between £11,000 and £12,000 through the agency of Wicklow Farm Relief Services Limited.  However, it is clear from the evidence of 
Mr. Kelly, from which Mr. Brown did not dissent, that, as a result of the sequela of the injuries which he suffered in the incident which gave rise to this claim, the Plaintiff is no longer capable of undertaking that type of work and will never, again, be able to do so.  Accordingly, he will lose the income which he enjoyed from Wicklow Farm Relief Services Limited.  In this regard, he has been assessed with regard to his capacity for alternative employment by Ms. Susan Tolan, the rehabilitation consultant, who, essentially, says that the Plaintiff's age, his lack of work skills and qualifications, his perception that his abilities are greater than they actually are and the fact that he is a bad interviewee will combine to inhibit his prospects to obtain worthwhile employment in the future.  While noting that he has obtained certain qualifications in the field of computers, Ms. Tolan is of the view that those qualifications account for very little on the employment market and, in particular, are unlikely to compare favourably with the qualifications of those who might compete with the Plaintiff for employment in the field of computers who, in any event, are likely to be younger than he is and, therefore, a more attractive proposition to a would be employer.  While conceding under cross-examination that the Plaintiff has mathematical skills and, on paper, should be able to work as a computer operator, Ms. Tolan is of the opinion that, because of his age and because he has never developed such skills as he has, it is unlikely that the Plaintiff will ever obtain worthwhile employment in the field of computers; particularly, if he continues to reside in the Wicklow area.  Moreover, she points out that the Plaintiff's current income on Social Welfare is marginally higher than what he might be able to command in suitable employment for which he is now qualified and that, therefore, he has no incentive to undertake employment.
	In the light of Ms. Tolan's evidence, while I think that, notionally, the Plaintiff has the capacity to acquire skills which will qualify him for employment which would command an income similar to that which he could have expected to earn through the agency of Wicklow Farm Relief Services Limited, I think that the reality is that, because of his age and because of his personality, he will never obtain such employment.  Accordingly, I think that, until he reaches the age of fifty five, when, in any event, the condition of his back is likely to have deteriorated to the extent that he is no longer fit for heavy labouring work, the Plaintiff is going to lose the difference between his current income from Social Welfare, which I understand is £165.30 per week and what he could reasonably expect to earn through the agency of Wicklow Farm Relief Services Limited, which I am assessing is likely to be in the region of £11,500 per annum, or £221 per week; a difference of £55.70 per week.  In addition, I think that, for the future, the Plaintiff will lose out on the income which, before his accident, he enjoyed from his activities as a disc jockey and sound systems engineer because he no longer has the capacity to lift and move the heavy equipment which he uses in the course of those activities.  However, as I have already indicated, I can see no reason why he should not be able to contain those losses by employing someone to assist him to move that equipment and, therefore I do not think that he will suffer a total loss of the £2,500 per annum which he earned as a disc jockey and sounds system engineer before his accident.  While I had no evidence what it might cost to employ someone to move this equipment I doubt that it would be more than £20 per week.  Accordingly, again somewhat arbitrarily, I would assess that that is the measure of the Plaintiff's future losses under that heading.  In this regard, Mr. Joseph Byrne, the actuary, gave evidence, which I accept, that the capital value of the loss of £1 per week for this Plaintiff from the present time to age fifty five is £557.  Accordingly, allowing, that as a result of his injuries, the Plaintiff will suffer a weekly reduction in income of £55.70 and will incur an additional expense to move his music equipment amounting to £20 per week, I calculate that the capital value of that loss and of that additional expense is £42,165.  However, I think that the Defendants are entitled to a discount against that figure on account of the possibility that, irrespective of the effects of the incident which gave rise to this claim, there was no guarantee that the Plaintiff would have remained in regular employment up to age fifty five.  In my view, it would be reasonable to discount the figure to £36,000, accordingly, that is the sum that I will allow in respect of the future loss of earnings 
	So far as general damages are concerned, for pain, suffering and general interference with the Plaintiff's enjoyment of life to date, I will allow a sum of £15,000.  As for the future, bearing in mind that this Plaintiff is only forty-one years of age and that, as a result of the sequela of the injuries which he suffered in the incident which gave rise to claim he will have ongoing problems with his back, his left wrist and his left ankle which will interfere with his comfort and restrict his activities including his choice of career it seems to me that a sum of £35,000 would be appropriate.  
	In the foregoing circumstances, I assess damages in this case in the sum of £109,103.96.