Case of the Week: Quarcoo v. Appiah

High Court · [1972] 2 GLR 30 · 9 March 1972 · Ghana

Introduction

This case deals with negligence in motor accidents and highlights an important legal rule: if you cause harm to someone, you must take them as you find them – even if their particular health condition or circumstances make the injury worse than you might have expected.

Facts

On 28 March 1969, the Plaintiff, a petty trader, attended a church service at Kaneshie. With no buses available home to Osu, she and a friend decided to walk along the pavement on the 28th February Road.

As they walked near the P.W.D. Headquarters, the defendant’s car suddenly veered onto the pavement and knocked the plaintiff down. She sustained a fractured femur, spent eleven weeks in hospital, and continued treatment as an outpatient. She became incapacitated and therefore sued for special and general damages for the personal injuries which she sustained as a result of a motor accident involving a vehicle owned and driven by the defendant. The Defendant’s counsel argued that the plaintiff’s permanent incapacity was not entirely the Defendant’s fault. They argued that the plaintiff’s injuries were made worse because Korle Bu Hospital lacked blood for a necessary surgical operation.

According to the Defendant’s Counsel, this failure of surgery was not something the defendant could have reasonably foreseen, he should not be held liable for the full extent of the plaintiff’s incapacity. In effect, the defendant wanted the monetary compensation being claimed to be reduced considerably, to cover only the immediate injury (the fracture), but not the worsened outcome (long-term incapacity).

Holding

The court (Abban J.) held that:

1. The defendant was driving carelessly – too close to the pavement, inattentive after drinking, and failed to brake before or after the impact.

2. The plaintiff did not contribute to the accident in any way.
3. The Defendant was fully responsible for all the consequences of the injury, even though the plaintiff’s condition worsened because the hospital lacked blood for surgery.
4. In law, the person who causes the accident (“wrongdoer”) must accept the victim as they are, fragile health and all.

¢4,356.00 was as such awarded to the Plaintiff to cover the pain, suffering, loss of amenities, lost income, and medical/transport costs), plus ¢500.00 costs.

Implications of the Decision

1. Drivers owe a high duty of care to pedestrians. If they fail, they are liable for all the harm caused, even if the injury is made worse by medical complications or the victim’s health.
2. The judgment confirms in Ghana the principle often called the “thin skull or egg shell skull rule”: you cannot argue that the victim’s condition made the injury unexpectedly severe. You will still be liable for the full consequences.
3. The case also shows how courts in Ghana calculate damages in personal injury cases, including pain and suffering and loss of life’s pleasures, even when there is not detailed evidence.

Significant Quote

“I am in great sympathy with this submission of learned counsel. But, unfortunately, I do not think it will be right to relieve the defendant of the full responsibility for all the consequences which can be said to have flown directly from his negligent conduct. Whether or not the lack of surgery contributed wholly or partly to the incapacity of the plaintiff, the injuries (which the defendant negligently inflicted) were the type which the defendant could reasonably have foreseen; and the defendant, as a tortfeasor, must be asked to take the plaintiff as he finds her… .In the well-known case of Dulieu v. White & Sons [1901] 2 K.B. 669 at p. 679, Kennedy J. said: “If a man is negligently run over or otherwise negligently injured in his body it is no answer to the sufferer’s claim for damages that he would have suffered less injury, or no injury at all, if he had not had an unusually thin skull or an unusually weak heart.” – Abban J (as he then was).

Commentary and Insights

This case is a reminder that if someone’s careless driving injures you, you are entitled to full compensation and not a reduced amount on account of your age, health, or “think skull or fragile bones”.

Also, once you cause harm, you are on the hook for everything that flows from it.

Importantly, this principle also carries over into criminal law. In homicide cases, for example, if an assailant inflicts a wound that is not necessarily fatal, but the victim dies because of a hidden condition (such as a weak heart, haemophilia, or delayed medical treatment), the attacker cannot escape liability for the death. Criminal jurisprudence, like civil law, holds that you must take your victim as you find them.

Thus, whether in civil negligence (damages) or criminal liability (homicide or assault), the law insists that a wrongdoer cannot reduce their responsibility by pointing to the victim’s fragility.