In our Compensations booklet for 2019, you may find a summary of all rulings issued by the Cypriot courts in 2019, in which compensations were awarded for damages resulting from any form of accident. The purpose of this report is to give an indication of the amount of compensation given for various accident cases.
We operate one of the biggest departments of insurance law in Cyprus and we represent some of the biggest insurance companies. We also represent natural persons in insurance disputes of all types, including severe injuries cases. We specialize in, among others, cases of road traffic accidents, accidents at work, professional liability, property damage, and procedures of compliance with insurance law. Our experience, expertise, domestic knowledge, and familiarity with modern technology enable us to face the challenges of insurance law in modern times. We seek to identify unreasonable claims, if any, and give legal advice at an early stage, seeking to achieve successful settlement from the onset of a dispute, while in cases where actions are taken to Court, the teams of our litigation department provide legal representation, defending the interests of our clients and seeking to assist the Court in achieving a just outcome in relation to the matters of the litigious dispute. We prepare detailed case assessments, presenting various scenarios and their possibilities before and after the initiation of actions. We also provide analytical reports of cases to foreign reinsurance companies. Lastly, we provide legal services for recovery cases and insurance disputes that extend into more than one jurisdiction.
The following pages provide a summary of the decisions of the Cypriot Courts (firstly of the Supreme Court and subsequently of first-instance courts) that were issued in 2019, in which compensation was awarded for injuries resulting from any form of accident. The purpose of the following collection of decisions is to provide an indication of the scale of compensation for various personal injuries. However, as repeatedly pointed out by the courts, previous decisions in relation to compensation do not necessarily constitute any binding precedent. Particularly, the courts illustrate that there is no standard valuation measure for human pain. The judgements of Courts in other decisions simply provide a general guidance because it is not possible for two people, who have been injured under totally different conditions and circumstances, to suffer the same personal injuries, pain and discomfort. However, when there exist, with regard to past cases, either a relevance to the trauma, or similarities in the extent, type, or result of the traumas, it is right and fair for Courts to draw guidance from, and take into account, the scale of compensation awarded in other cases. Consequently, while it is true that the courts are led to the determination of the amount of the compensation based on the case-law, they first and foremost have to take into consideration the conditions and circumstances of the case.
|Civil Appeal Number||48/2013|
|Date of Judgement||15.02.2019|
|Parties||Lazaros Hadjiforados & Sons Ltd. V. Louka|
|Court||Supreme Court (M. Nikolatos, D. Michailidou, G. Giasemi)|
|Facts||The Appellee, 39 years old, as a result of a work accident, while performing manual labor, sustained an injury to the lumbar spine on pre-existing asymptomatic osteoarthritis, which resulted in the worsening of the osteoarthritis and finally resulted in causing disc hernia. This was hernia at the L3-L4 levels of the intervertebral disc, with pressure of the left sciatic nerve. As regards his mental health, it was found that it was, already, to an extent, burdened, but the accident made it even worse due to his inability to work. The Court of Appeal did not vary the judgement of the first-instance Court, since it deemed that the health problems faced by the Appellee were causally linked to his injury to the waist region.|
|Civil Appeal Number||81/2013|
|Date of Judgement||14.05.2019|
|Parties||Koumi v. Kiriakou|
|Court||Supreme Court (St. Nathanail, K. Stamatiou, A.S. Pougiourou)|
|Facts||The Appellee, aged 20, specialized in construction, as a result of a traffic collision sustained severe traumatic brain injury, acute subdural hematoma acute subdural hematoma of the left temporal lobe of a 3 millimetre thickness, skull fracture, lesions on the upper lungs, hemothorax (both), and a pelvic fracture. Furthermore, it was found that he displayed personality disorder, with excessive irritability and impulsive behaviour manifested by aggression and destructive tendencies. He also showed emotional instability with periods of depression with reduced interest and suicidal thoughts. This personality disorder was a consequence of the brain injury and had a negative effect on the well-being, interpersonal relationships and professional career of the Appellee. Over time, only a small improvement was expected. Although he previously worked in construction, the construction environment was not identified as appropriate for him to work in. The first-instance Court adjudicated as general damages for full liability the amount of €120.000. On Appeal, the Supreme Court stated that the above amount is considered reasonable and fair compensation. Furthermore, in relation to the flat rate of €80.000 adjudicated to the Appellee for loss of future income, the Supreme Court indicated that having in mind that at the time of the accident, the Appellee was 20 years old and can no longer practice the occupation of construction worker or worker in constructions he previously did, it was deemed that the amount of €80.000 was fair and reasonable for the loss of future income. Both the First-instance and the Supreme Courts indicated that on the basis of the evaluation of the evidence and the relevant findings, it was not expedient to use the multiplier and multiplicand to calculate the loss of future income of the Appellee.|
|Civil Appeal Number||486/2012|
|Date of Judgement||10.09.2019|
|Parties||Gerolemou v. Attorney General of the Republic and others|
|Court||Supreme Court (M. Nikolatos, P. Michailidou, T. Oikonomou)|
|Facts||The Appellant, a part-time employee at the Larnaca airport, after a traffic collision, which happened at the Larnaca airport during his employment, suffered a right ankle and heel injury. The term injury also covers the sprain as explained by the medical evidence presented. It was a simple sprain, a simple injury. The Appellee also had a 3 mm wound and his leg was bandaged. The bandaging, which was performed on the ankle, started from the toes and ended up in the middle of the tibia. He was given painkillers (distalgesic and panadol). The Appellant was discharged from the hospital shortly after his examination and was granted sick leave by his private doctor from 23.4.2007 until 5.6.2007. The Supreme Court stated that the amount of €2,000 awarded at first instance for full liability for bodily harm was indeed very low and increased it to €4,000.|
|Civil Appeal Number||164/2013|
|Date of Judgement||18.09.2019|
|Parties||Nikolaou v. Challoumi|
|Court||Supreme Court (St. Nathanail, K. Stamatiou, A.S. Pougiourou)|
|Facts||The Appellee, a civil engineer aged 51, as a
result of a traffic collision, sustained a fracture of the lateral
malleolus. He was hospitalized at the General Hospital of Nicosia
for 9 days and underwent reduction of the injured limb surgery for
the placement of osteosynthesis materials. His leg remained in a
plaster splint for 1 month. The Appellee was absent from work for a
period of 4 months. Even before the adjudication of the case, he
still felt irritations and as a permanent remnant of the injury
there was a 20° reduced plantar flexion of his injured limb
which prevents him from walking on uneven ground, as well as
downhill. On appeal, the amount of €20.000 for general damages
was not challenged.
The appeal regarded the adjudication of the amount of €25.000 for reduced income capacity, as well as the fact that interest was adjudicated on the above amount from the day of the filing of the action and not from the date of the issuance of the judgement. The Supreme Court determined that, in spite of the fact that there was an increase in the monthly income of the Appellee, by approximately €1.000 per month, in a period of 6 years after the accident, the adjudication of the above amount is justified for the reason that evidence was adduced that the Appellee after the accident could not perform his duties in the same speed. The Court mentioned that the Appellee, as a civil engineer, faces difficulties in the performance of his work, and, especially, when supervising construction sites which is an important part of his work. And this is because it is required that he walks up and down stairs and walking on uneven ground. In this respect, the conduct of his work is rendered more time consuming, and as a result, while he previously could proceed to the supervision of multiple construction sites, due to his injury, he had to restrict himself to the supervision of two construction sites per day. Regarding the adjudication of interest on the adjudicated amount for the loss of income ability, the Court deemed that tax should not be adjudicated, save for from the day of the issuance of the judgement.
|Civil Appeal Number||327/2012|
|Date of Judgement||25.09.2019|
|Parties||Kalli v. Agathonos|
|Court||Supreme Court (M. Nikolatos, A.R. Liatsos, T.Th. Economou).|
|Facts||It was a finding of the first-instance Court that the disc hernia sustained by the Appellant was not the causal result of the litigious traffic accident and that the Appellant simply suffered a mild fracture of the cervical spine. The Supreme Court, referring to the finding of the first-instance Court that the Appellant faced the problems in question directly after the traffic collision and that he continued to face them during the hearing of the case, 6 years later, indicated that even if the condition is considered preexistent, there had been worsening of the previously asymptomatic condition, for a period much longer than average, namely 4-6 weeks, as in the relevant medical evidence. On the basis of the above it deemed that the amount of €4.000 as general damages for injury, pain, and hardship that was adjudicated at first instance was clearly insufficient and raised it to €10.000.|
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.