Dave Bhola and Angynie Mangray v Gloria Rupert and The Attorney General

• Jurisdiction: Trinidad & Tobago
• Court: High Court (Trinidad and Tobago)
• Judge: Ramrattan, M.
• Judgment Date: 12 February 2026
• Neutral Citation: TT 2026 HC 72
• Year: 2026
• Docket Number: Suit No.: CV2017-04242

Dave Bhola and Angynie Mangray

and

Gloria Rupert and The Attorney General

Ramrattan, M.

Suit No.: CV2017-04242

High Court

Mr. Shawn Roopnarine for the Claimants, instructed by Mr. Vishnu Bridgemohan.

Ms. Keisha Prosper for the Defendant, instructed by Ms. Anala Mohan.

DECISION ON THE ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES

BRIEF SUMMARY OF FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

Ramrattan, M.

1 The Claimants filed a claim against the Defendant on 22 November 2017 seeking damages for personal injuries and consequential loss suffered by the Claimants as a result of a fallen tree incident which occurred on 22 August 2015 in the vicinity of Caura River. At the material time, the Claimants were at a picnic table when suddenly a tree fell on top of them. The claim was amended on 25 October 2019.

2 On 4 October 2023, the Honourable Mr. Justice Ramcharan ordered Judgment in favour of the Claimants against the Defendant and the Defendant to pay the Claimants damages together with costs and interest in a sum to be assessed by a Master in Chambers.

3 The matter was then transferred to the Master. In this matter, lists of documents, witness statements, hearsay notices and submissions were filed. The trial on the assessment of damages proceeded on 11 December 2025. The Claimants called five witnesses: Dr. Stephen Ramroop (“Dr. Ramroop”), Ms. Ornella Persad and the three Claimants. No witness was called on behalf of the Defendant.

4 The following table contains a summary of the awards sought by the Claimants:

	Dave Bhola	Angynie Mangray	Gloria Rupert
General Damages	$140,000.00	$90,000.00	$140,000.00
Future Medical Expenses	$3,000.00	$4,000.00	$4,000.00
Gratuitous Care	$42,500.00 ($2,500.00 per month for 17 months)	NIL	NIL
Special Damages
Cost of medical services	$800.00 + $1,000.00	$3,000.00 + $1,000.00	$3,700.00
Cost of medical supplies	NIL	$163.00	$1,199.50
Loss of Earnings	$53,457.10 ($3,063.26 x 17)	$9,804.00	$4,500.00
Domestic Services	NIL	NIL	$3,600.00
Special Dietary Requirement	NIL	NIL	$104.20
Interest on General Damages	3.5%	3.5%	3.5%
Interest on Special Damages	1.75%	1.75%	1.75%

5 The following table contains a breakdown of the awards suggested by the Defendant:

	Dave Bhola	Angynie Mangray	Gloria Rupert
General Damages	$70,000.00-$80,000.00	$40,000.00-$50,000.00	$35,000.00-$40,000.00

LAW AND ANALYSIS GENERAL DAMAGES

6 The guidelines for assessing General Damages as set out in Cornilliac v. St. Louis [1965] 7 W.I.R. 491 are as follows:

• i. The nature and extent of the injuries sustained;

• ii. The nature and gravity of the resulting physical disability;

• iii. The pain and suffering endured;

• iv. The loss of amenities suffered; and

• v. The effect on the pecuniary prospects.

7 The Defendant cited the statement of Kangaloo, J.A. in Munroe Thomas v. Malachi Ford Civ. App. 25 of 2007:

“The assessment of damages for personal injuries claim should be a straightforward arithmetical exercise…[but] far too often sight is lost of two fundamental principles: first, that a personal injury claim must never be viewed as a road to riches and secondly, that a claimant is entitled to fair, not perfect compensation.”

As well as Lord Jauncey in Ruxley Electronics and Construction Ltd v. Forsyth [1995] 3 All E.R. 268:

“Damages are designed to compensate for an established loss and not to provide a gratuitous benefit to the aggrieved party, from which it follows that the reasonableness of an award of damages is to be linked directly to the loss sustained.”

SPECIAL DAMAGES

8 Generally, special damages are to be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. The degree of strictness varies, depending on the circumstances regarding the items of special damages that the Claimant is seeking to recover, per Anand Rampersad v. Willies Ice Cream C.A. Civil 20/2002.

THE FIRST CLAIMANT: DAVE BHOLA

GENERAL DAMAGES

9 The First Claimant relied on the following medical documents in support of his injuries:

• a. Medical Report from Dr. A. Glasgow of the North Central Regional Health Authority dated 7 December 2015;

• b. Medical Report from Dr. David R. Santana dated 11 April 2016;

• c. Medical Report from Dr. R. Moonsie of North Central Regional Health Authority dated 27 March 2017; and

• d. Medical Report from Dr. Stephen Ramroop dated 28 March 2025.

NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE INJURIES SUSTAINED

10 The First Claimant was admitted to the Eric Williams Medical Complex on 24 August 2015 (2 days after the incident). The Medical Report dated 7 December 2015 by Dr. A. Glasgow diagnosed the First Claimant with a right humerus fracture, and he was discharged to the out-patient clinic. A Medical Report dated 11 April 2016 by Dr. David R. Santana states that he sustained muscle damage and an X-ray revealed a non-union fracture of the right humerus. Dr. Santana stated that the First Claimant required surgery by way of open reduction and internal fixation and bone grafting. Additionally, the Medical Report of Dr. R. Moonsie also diagnosed the Claimant with a non-union of right humeral shaft fracture and that he had undergone open reduction and internal fixation of right humerus fracture.

NATURE AND GRAVITY OF THE RESULTING PHYSICAL DISABILITY

11 It is the First Claimant's evidence that he is right-handed and that he sustained a fracture in the right humerus requiring surgery. On the day he was diagnosed with a fracture, his arm was placed in a cast supported by a sling. The First Claimant's movement of his right hand was consequently restricted, affecting his ability to perform his daily routine. His wife assisted him.

12 The surgery on 11 October 2016 was successful, but the First Claimant experienced “residual disability”. Consequently, for approximately three months thereafter, he required assistance from his wife with his daily routine.

13 It is the First Claimant's position that he continues to suffer from soft tissue injuries to his right shoulder with ligament strain and experiences decreased range of movement of his right shoulder. The First Claimant has an extensive healed scar about the fracture site, and Dr. Ramroop diagnosed him with 18% permanent whole-body impairment requiring therapy to rehabilitate his right shoulder and hand.

PAIN AND SUFFERING ENDURED

14 The First Claimant stated that at the time of the incident, he was pinned to the ground and felt pain about his body, but particularly in his right arm. He could not move his right hand without experiencing pain.

15 After the incident, the pain continued. The medication for the pain only temporarily relieved the pain, and he could not sleep comfortably due to the pain in his right arm. The First Claimant indicated he continues to experience severe and constant pain about his right arm, which is aggravated when he raises his right hand above his head and performs daily tasks of routine living.

LOSS OF AMENITIES

16 The First Claimant submitted that he can no longer enjoy participating in the recreational activities as he once enjoyed, such as playing cricket and exercising without experiencing pain about his right arm. There was no evidence of this apart from his wife under cross-examination, indicating that he engaged in playing sports.

COMPARATORS

17 I have considered the comparators submitted by the First Claimant and Defendant. Both sides cited the case of Ian Sealy v. Simon Layne and Ors CV2016-00004. In that case, the Claimant suffered a fracture dislocation of his left humeral head, underwent open-reduction and internal fixation surgery, was hospitalised for nine days, and his left shoulder remained in a sling for a year. He experienced stiffness in his shoulder and diminished mobility. The First Claimant also experienced scarring at the surgical site and had to engage in physiotherapy at home. The First Claimant was unable to continue working as a grass-cutter. General Damages in the sum of $85,000.00 was awarded to that Claimant in March 2019.

18 Based on the judicial trends and circumstances of this case, I am minded to award the First Claimant $90,000.00 in General Damages.

FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES

19 The Medical Report of Dr. Ramroop indicated that the First Claimant has a permanent whole-body impairment of 18% from the injuries arising out of the incident and has reached maximum medical improvement. Dr. Ramroop recommended six continued sessions of therapy to rehabilitate the right shoulder and hand at a cost of $3,000.00. It is the First Claimant's position that he still has significant disability and pain, thus he requires therapy to rehabilitate his right shoulder and hand.

20 Based on the medical report of Dr. Ramroop, having considered the Claimant's evidence and observing the Claimant's arm at trial, including the location of the scar which is still visible, I am minded to award the sum of $3,000.00 for future medical expenses.

SPECIAL DAMAGES

GRATUITOUS CARE

21 The First Claimant is seeking an award for gratuitous care provided by his wife for a period of 17 months at $2,500.00 per month. It was submitted that his wife, Ornella Pollard, took care of him and their household for the entire period he was unable to do so himself. This period being 22 August 2015 to 29 January 2017, which is approximately 17 months. The Claimant's wife gave evidence that she stopped nursing school at COSTATT to take care of his husband, but provided no documentation that she was actually enrolled within the institution at that time and even indicated that she was a student for three years.

22 The First Claimant cited the case of Devanand Ramsamooj v. Dai-Tech Limited CV2013-02216, where the sum of $2,500.00 per month was reasonable for the Claimant's aunt, who provided domestic assistance, and the same should be applied to this case. In that case, the Claimant had high...