A DRIVER has been awarded more than £65,000 in damages after suffering whiplash injuries and being off work for 14 months following a crash on Victoria Avenue.
Duarte Carvalho was described as suffering long-lasting pain after a car drove into the back of his stationary truck, according to a Royal Court judgment.
He has been unable to carry out the same level of work more than two years after the crash at the junction of Victoria Avenue and Rue de Galet in January 2022, the court heard.
Liability for the incident was accepted by the driver of the second vehicle, Samuel Love, but some elements were disputed, including the extent of Mr Carvalho’s injuries, the length of time before he returned to work and the impact on his past and future earnings.
The matters were considered at a hearing on 2 April this year before the Deputy Bailiff, Robert Macrae, and Jurats Jane Ronge and Michael Entwhistle.
The court heard that Mr Carvalho had moved to Jersey from his native Madeira aged 44, and was 51 at the time of the collision having previously worked in landscape gardening before joining Ferryspeed.
Although he was wearing a seatbelt at the time of the crash, Mr Carvalho suffered whiplash injuries to his neck, shoulders and arms.
He was no longer able to swim and play football as a result of what happened, and could not lift heavy items.
The judgment described Mr Carvalho beginning a phased return to work in March 2023, but also said that he was still experiencing “chronic pain” in September of that year.
He also experienced depression as a result of concern about his future work prospects, reduced earning potential and difficulties meeting maintenance payments for his son.
Claims by Mr Love’s legal team that the victim had exaggerated the impact of what had taken place were rejected by the panel.
The judgment stated: “We were satisfied on the evidence that the plaintiff acted reasonably in the way that he went about taking all advice and treatments offered to him, complying with the advice given and returning to work when he did at a time which was, in the event, dictated to him by his employer on the advice that they received.
“Accordingly, we are satisfied that he acted reasonably and in any event the defendant has failed to persuade us that it was unreasonable in returning to work when he did.”
Credit: Source link
