Lowdon v Jumpzone Leisure UK Ltd

In negligence, the precise mechanism or medical consequence of an injury need not be foreseeable if personal injury of the relevant general kind was reasonably foreseeable. Evidence that no earlier injuries had been reported does not, without more, establish that injury was unforeseeable.

Guideline brackets for general damages are starting points. They do not prevent a court from adjusting an award to reflect the particular features of the claimant’s loss of amenity. A separate element may therefore be awarded for the significant loss of use of a car caused by injury, even where the resulting total exceeds the guideline bracket, provided there is no double recovery.

The claimant suffered a vertebral artery dissection after being launched without warning on the defendant’s Hyper Jump ride. The Brighton County Court found that the defendant had negligently operated the ride and awarded £17,000 in general damages, together with special damages, interest and indemnity interest.

The defendant appealed on liability and quantum. It argued that injury was not reasonably foreseeable to an operator where the claimant was properly strapped in, and that the award wrongly included a separate sum for loss of use of a car. The central issues were reasonable foreseeability of injury and the proper treatment of the Judicial College Guidelines.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal upheld the findings on liability and the total award of general damages.
2. The judge was entitled to find that injury was reasonably foreseeable when a customer was launched without warning while unbraced. It was unnecessary to show that vertebral artery dissection itself was foreseeable; foreseeability of personal injury in general was sufficient: The Wagon Mound [No1] and Hughes v Lord Advocate. The defendant’s own operating guidelines, training and safety practice supported the finding. The absence of earlier reported injuries did not, by itself, disprove reasonable foreseeability.
3. The judge had properly considered the evidence, including the expert evidence, and was entitled to find that the unexpected launch created a foreseeable risk of neck injury. The appellate court would not interfere with those factual findings.
4. The Judicial College Guidelines were guidance and starting points. A guideline bracket could be adjusted to reflect the special features of the individual case. In the circumstances, £12,000 for pain, suffering and general loss of amenity did not fully compensate the claimant for the significant inconvenience of being unable to drive for almost two years. A further £5,000 was permissible, notwithstanding that the total exceeded the guideline bracket.
5. The award did not duplicate the separate award for lost business mileage profit. The judge’s assessment of the additional loss of amenity was not shown to be erroneous. The appeal was dismissed in relation to both liability and quantum.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — Appeal from the Brighton County Court. The appeal against the judgment and order of Her Honour Judge Waddicor dated 17 July 2014 was dismissed.
• Brighton County Court — Judgment for the claimant, including £17,000 general damages and further sums for special damages, interest and indemnity interest.