Anderson v Pearson Bridge (Queensland) Pty Ltd [1990] QSC 103

10 30 50 60 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CIVIL JURISDICTION 6C- qot I JJY ;lJ.of~/ ~\<) - I iivv· No. 1812 of 1985 ~":~.-~ ... ,.........,.,..~,.~•<I' BEFORE MR JUSTICE COOPER j F::.:V!S:::D CCP!'=.S !fiSUEC ~ (~;-:·u(: :>: (J(':t·;;;:-J !3Ui82tl BRISBANE 23 APRIL 1990 t l Ur),,'·•~ ( ,/ ~- / q :'I ! c, ... ..,: d .J (Copyright in this transcript is vested ____ in--* lO the Crown. Copies thereof must not be made or sold without the written authority of the_ Chief Court Reporter,Court Repo~ting Bureau.) BETWEEN: JOHN MERVYN ANDERSON -and- PEARSON BRIDGE (QUEENSLAND) PTY LTD JUDGMENT Plaintiff Defendant HIS HONOUR: In this matter there will_be_judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $208,804.57 together with costs to be taxed. I publish my reasons. In all the circumstances, there being some controversy as to the circumstances as to why the trial did not go on, the best view from the point of view of the plaintiff is that there was not a judge available and in those circumstances, it was not the fault of the defendant that the trial could not be heard and I will not make any order in respect to those reserved costs. -Govt. Printer, Qld. 1 20 30 40 50 60 -- 1 of 17 -- \34,1 O (~'), \_ IN THE SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND No. 1812 of 1985 Before Mr. Justice Cooper BETWEEN: CATCHWORDS: Counsel: Solicitors: JOHN MERVYN ANDERSON PEARSON BRIDGE (QUEENSLAND) PTY. LTD. JUDGMENT - COOPER J. Delivered the 23rd day of April, 1990. W.J. Roberts for plaintiff R. Stenson for defendant Bence Derek & Associates t/a for Plaintiff Defendant Graham Davies & Associates for plaintiff Mccrea Jones for defendant Hearing date: 6 April, 1990. -- 2 of 17 -- C) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND BETWEEN: AND: JOHN MERVYN ANDERSON PEARSON BRIDGE (QUEENSLAND) PTY. LTD. JUDGMENT - COOPER J. No. 1812 of 1985 Plaintiff Defendant Delivered the 23rd day of April, 1990. On 7 November, 1983 the plaintiff was injured in the course of his employment on a bridge construction site. The defendant, his employer, has admitted liability for the plaintiff's injuries and for the loss and damage occasioned thereby. The only issue before me was the quantum of the damages to be awarded. The plaintiff was injured when a steel girder was dislodged and pinned the plaintiff's legs between·the girder and a pontoon. \,) In consequence the plaintiff suffered crush injuries to his right tibia and fibula and a fracture of his left medial malleolus. The injury to the right leg involved open fractures of the tibia and fibula. The plaintiff was admitted to the Southport Hospital and operated on on the evening of 7 November, 1983. A compound scrub of the wounds was performed, the fracture of the right tibia and fibula were internally fixed using a plate on the tibia and a nail in the fibula, and, a screw was inserted in the lef.t medial malleolus. -- 3 of 17 -- 2 On 20•·.Noverribe:t', 1983 due to problein~(with the wound-healing the plaint:i.ff 'was t:t-ansferred to the Princess Alexandra Hosp-ital for plastic· surgeri ~re~tment. At the Princess Alex·ai'ldra' Hospital it was determined that the plate would be removed from the right tibia and an external fixateur applied. A skin graft was performed to cover the boney defect. The loss of skin and soft tissue from the top bf the right foot and the method of fixation 6f the fractures is clearly seen in· the photographs, ex. 16. As appears from the report of the Gold Coast Hospitals' Board (ex~ 6) the loss of skin and tissue was caused by necrosis •:- of the site of the skin wound leading to the area sloughing off. The external fixation was removed in theatre on 8 February, 1984 and a plaster cast was applied. The plaintiff was discharged on 10 February,· 1984 .but was re-admitted on 2 April, _1984. On 24 April, 1984 the plaintiff underwent a further operation for bone grafting via a postero lateral approach to the fracture of . the tibia. He was discharged on 1 May, 1984. · As appears from the report of Dr. M. Lee (ex. 5) infection appears to have occurred in the fracture site which infection flares up from time to time and works its way to the skin "discharging and infecting adjacent skin causing cellulitis i.e. spreadirig skin infection of the leg, making the patient very ill". The plaintiff has been hospitalised for two periods with celluli tis of the leg. · The first was from 19 _July, 19-86 to 25 July, 1986 at "the Southport • - I ~ Hospital. "Thk 0 second was froin, 1.5 -M~y/1987 to 27 _Mdy,_ 1987 at the Bundaberg Hospital. On each occasiC>n he· ~as'treated with penicillin ·ar;Lps· 'while 'an in:...patie.nt: a.'.~d oral ·antibiotics on discharge. () ") -- 4 of 17 -- ) 3 Two. report$ _of Dr. W.B. Maguire, o:r:thopaedic surgeon, were tendered into evidence (ex. 8) . _ Dr. Maguire did not give evidence before me. opined:- In his report of 25 February, 1986 .he "OPINION: The remaining effects of his injuries are as follows: 1. _2. To the right lower limb I described the injuries relating only to the accident in 1983. He has quite severe injuries to the hip area, dating back. to the accident thirteen years ago. Some scarring remains. The scars are of poor quality and are breaking down with minor injury and this situation is likely to continue, though the quality of the skin probably will slowly improve as the years pass. There is some muscle wasting which will be permanent and some restricted knee joint movement which will be permanent. There. is. deformity ,of the tibia which will be 'permanent and· there · is restricted ankle joint r~nge which will be permanent. There is also restriction of tarsal range which will be permanent. There are early' osteoarthritic changes in the ankle and tarsal joints and these probably will increase a little as the years pass. I consider at present that there is 40% loss of function of the right lower limb as a whole as a result of the accident in 1983 and this is likely to increase a little over the years due to degenerative changes in the ankle joint and foot. The final disability I would expect to be in the region of 50%. _ Regarding his ,left lower limb - there is some scarring, which will be permanent and there is a fracture which . has _ united with a slight irregularity with the aid of a screw and the,re is some_ early osteoarthritic change in the medial compartment of the ankle joint. This may increase a little as the years pass. I. cons_ider_ ~t present_ that there [ is l _1 0% loss of function of the left lower limb as a whole·· and I think this will increase a little over the next decade, but I would not expect the final -- 5 of 17 -- 4 · disabili tr to· exceed: 15% loss·· of function of· the' ~- .: •·· limb." . ~·· ., ,_ .. ; In his report of 13 September, 1989 he opined:- "OPINION: My opinion is essentially unchanged. I consider at present that there' is 40% · loss of function• •. of the right lower limb as a whole and I think the final·disability here will be· in the vicinity 0£ 50% loss of function of the limb. Regarding his left lower limb - I think there is at present 10% loss of;function of the left lower limb as a whole. This probably will increase a little as the years pass due to development of some osteoarthritic change here and I think the final disability will be 15% loss·of function of the limb. The final figures probably will be reached within the next five to tenyears." · Dr. Paul Robinson, orthopaedic surgeon,· ·in a report dated April 17;. ·· 1986 ·opined: - . "OPINION This ge~tleman has a severe disability affecting.his right lower limb following an industrial accident in 1983. He has recovered from the acute problems and _now is back at work but has a stiff ankle and .· sub-talar region which will prevent him from returning to any useful occupation involving climbing, crouching '·· etc·.' · He has arthritic changes present· in the ·ankle ~nd . adjacent joints and these are virtually arthrodesed and although not painful at this stage he may require operative intervention if they become so. The ldss·of function he has of the ankle amounts to a 50 percentage of this limb. With respect to the left · · ~nkle there is mild arthritic change present but this· should not seriously inconvenience him and the loss of function in this side would be less than 10 percent. He may require the internal fixation device to be :temoved in the future."· · The plaintiff now walks with a marked limp. The right side of · the skin · and underlying · tissue ··on· · the right leg : is subst.antially'.- wasted away' and the ldweri- ·leg and foot· are grossly · r disfigured: :Th.e·top:of·:the· right'·fo·6t where the: graft has·been performed "weeps ::·:and·· 'is-' J:±·ab'le: ·'to .;rub and -ulcerate . if,. 'the·:., plaintiff wears shoes. The right leg is ½" shorter than ·the'· _: () -- 6 of 17 -- 5 left leg. :-. The ~i_qht thigh, and calf hav.e wasted by ½'' and 1 ¼" respectively. malleolus. The left ankle has a 3" scar over the medial The plaintiff has undergone considera_ble pain and loss .of amenity associated with the original injuries, _ the number of surgical operations undertaken and the complications with the treatment of the. wounds on the right leg._ He was discharged from hospital because of some confusion as to whether the ~-) plaintiff or someone in the hospital had contracted "Golden'- . Staph" infection. While in hospital he spent a considerable time.alone in isolation. Upon discharge he was mobilized in a wheelchair. He was restricted to the wheelchair for about six weeks before he was able to get around on crutches. He was on crutches for eight_to nine wee~~ and then walke~~i~h. t~~ aid of a stick for· another four to five weeks. As a result of the injuries to the right foot the plaintiff / · has been left with poor circulation. He suffers from swelling \ ) / \ ) in both feet and pain in· the nature of pins and needles. _ The pain worsens to the point that the plaintiff is required.to lie down to allow the pins and needles to subside. When.this has happened the plaintiff is able to get back onto his feet. These episodes occur after the plaintiff has_been _on his feet for two to .two.and :a half hours. The episodes occur on a daily basis. Prior to. the accident the plaintiff wou_ld engage, in horse ridipg and_c:ycling as-sporting activities._ He.is no~ precluded from . these ac;:ti vities __ by,._reason of his_ injuries. His present spo~ting acti~it~es are darts.and golf (which.he plays ~rom.~ buggy;) .... -- 7 of 17 -- 6 I am satisfied that the 'plaintiff suffered substantial'·pain- -- and suffering.at the time of :the: accident and in the long-period of · reco'very ~ · Th~re · was · the additional pain · and suffering: associated with the multiple·operations, the skin graft andthe·- problems associated with the treatment and recovery of the-open· wound. The plaintiff.has obvious unsightly scars to the right: thigh; shin and foot and to the left· shin.· The. plaintiff- will· in the fut~re ·have on-going serious pain in the legs and lower back. 'Th·e fact· that the skin· graft to the top of the right foot breaks 'down easily when abraded, and ulcerates leading to infection, and the risk of future episodes of cellulitis with con~~quent hospitalisatiori and the physical strain and distress~: cau~~d·to the plaintiff during such ~pisodes, satisfies me that there is a reasonable probability of significant future pain and suffering· and loss of amenities over and above the pain arising frci~· his·orthdpaedic injuries. The injuries of the plaintiff and his future prognosis remove this case·from the dategory of cas~s' where there'· are like orthopaedic injuries with· s'imilar perma~ent percentage disabilities. In all · the circumstances ·I· asse~~ damag~s for past and future pain suffering and loss of amenities 'in the sum of $70,000.00 . . ... The princ·ipal issue before me was the question of past and - future economic loss. The plaintiff left school at age 14 and·' completed '· an · appre·nticeship as a master butcher~ ·After completing· his apprenticeship h·e 'wo'rked'·· as· a 'butcher :in Sydney for two years. He theri woi"ked' with the· tramway-' author:i. ty for abo.ut two -,Years '·and;._then came ·to Qu~ensland with his ··pare~ts~ - In Queensland he undertook a number of varied occupations:. ' ( )-. \~ -- 8 of 17 -- 7 ultimatelybecom~n9 ,inv:olved _in the construction, industry on the Gold. Coast, firstr , as a .concrete vibrator opera½or and ultimately as a- concrete finisher. It was due to a fall off in work in the construction industry that the plaintiff had taken employment. with the defendant as a labourer. The evidence establishes that the plaintiff had a good work history, being substant.ially employed during his working life until the accident. The various occupations .in which he has been employed are of a labouring or unskilled nature. In an interview with Mrs. H •. Coles, occupational therapist, the plaintiff described his . employment in ... the two years prior to the injury. as "18 months to 2 years 'off a~d on' self-employed as a day.hire concreter; 7 weeks with Pearson Bridge {Queensland) Pty. Ltd. as a labourer"• .· .. The plaintiff was injured in a motor cycle accident. in about 1973. In that incident he fractured his right fo~earm and. (~ right.hip. _Dr. Maguire in his examination of the plaintiff on \ / .) 24. February, 1986 found that rotation of the right. hip was reduced by approximately 60,per cent as a result of tbe previous fracture and the internal pinning of the joint. X-,1'.:ay examination revealed osteoarthritic changes in the hip and also some arthritic and early degenerative changes in the right and left.ankles . . The plaintiff gave evidence that the effects of the previous inj.uries .. had cep.sed. within :f:our . years of I the. motor cycle accident. and the l.imi tation from t_he hip. injury was not ,.· . ·• . \. . : ' ,. aff~cting his ,ability 0 to work, or.distress •. nor .. was it c:ausing him . any pain . . -- 9 of 17 -- 8 . Mr. Stenson~of ·dounser for the defendant submitted t:hat'.the>:t, osteoarthritis ·would have 1·ea to pain sufficient'to-preclude the plaintiff from 'undertaking heavy manual work until- age 65,: 'and that the pain now experienced in the right and left:leg5 rartging through the lower -back·and the back of the neck is due·to.the degenerative changes associated with the previous hip injury. In cross-examination-Dr. Robinson agreed that- heavy manual work would affect a hip already subject to osteoarthritic change and that the arthritis would gradually increase. The doctor also agreed that depending upon the severity of the arthritis the pain would increase and may reach the point~where'the sufferer was unable to continue doing heavy labouring work. Dr. Robinson had not examined the X-rays of the hip and therefore could not, and wou],d not, · express any_· opinion as · to _whether,• or·· when, the plaintiff would be forced to cease heavy labouring work because of the arthritic changes. He expressed the opinion that the present ·pain suffered by the plaintiff some six and a half years (J after the accident, when he has not been engaged in heavy labouringf:is e~plicable on the basis th~t the forces now placed on the hip because of the abnormal mechanics involved in walking with a stiff ankle, are sufficient to cause the pain described. The evidence does not allow me to find that the plaintiff would as a matter of probability have ceased employment at any particular·' age.- · - However,: · as Dr. Robinson ·said,,> ''he · ( the plaintiff) would have possibly had some reduction in his working .... ' :: : -- ' life as a: ·-ia;hourer11 'due 'to' 'the osb~oarthritic· tchanges 'and·· the '. ~ ~ . . - . nature . of : the .. >wo:tk'- 'the ~p:lairitiff'-' 'wa~/.:.•enga-ged ·in.::•l. ~The > • - ~. •.-• • ..:. •• • possibility is, therefore, something to· be taken· into· account 0 -- 10 of 17 -- ( )\ , 9 when . disc9unting. ~or • the, .normal. contingencies .. of life. and the particular circumstances releva.nt to this plaintiff. • In -her report of 18 May, 1989 Mrs. Coles expressed. the following opinion:- ."It is my opinion, based on the foregoing information, that:- 1 . Mr. Anderson would not be capable of returning to his former. employ .as concrete finisher/concrete patcher, or his original trade as a butcher. 2. He would be disadvantaged in job selection by his age, period of unemployment and physical disability. 3. Although he would be capable, with intermittent rests, of ,doing taxi driving or private vehicle hire driving, he would be expected to experience variable levels of difficulty if required to handle heavy suitcases, packages or the like. 4. Al though he has perf armed one day' s road rolling, ~r .. Anderson wou:l:-9- .. be unlikely to be hired, . specifically as a road . i-olter Ope.ra.tor,. 'arid . , employers would expect flexibility of operational capacity for a variety of plant equipment. 5. He would be expected to have the capacity to work in light stores work such as that which he undertook following his accident. 6. Mr. Anderson's occupational opportunities have been narrowed and he would experience difficulty obtaining and maintaining himself in employment." In a later report dated 2 April, 1990 she expressed the further opinion:- "OPINION Mr. Anderson's occupational prospects have not altered and the opinion previously expressed, continues to apply. (. I would recommend, however, that Mr. Anderson refer himself-to.the Commonwealth, Rehabilitation Service, Southport Regional Unit to undergo fcirmal rehabilitation intervention, as this would enhance his prospects for finding appropiiate part-time employme~t .on,the Gold.Coast." -- 11 of 17 -- 1 0 . In -evidence she:expressed~the: following-opinion:~ "Could· you just ~state :briefly• what those conclusions . · · ·· are?-- Virtually they are in the opinion that • essentially he is: commercially unemployable, as I have said in the opinion. There are things that he could do and has indeed- being {sic) doing off. and on,·according to the condition of his leg or legs and back at the time.· He, has been able to work on boats off. and on for friends. He has been working as a electrical storeman for a period of time,again for a friend. He has been helping around the units where he lives, during shorb periods~of time just cleaning the· pool and looking after the gardens. That in itself is not what. I call commercial employability. It is .. working as and when he is able to according to thecondition at the time. ~n your report of 2 -April, you haven't changed that conclusion, have you?-- I . have only changed the_ conc·lusion in that I- have said that if he referred himself to the Commonwealth Rehab. Service at Southport~ it may enhance his possibilities for· finding suitable part-time work." Since the accident the plaint~ff has worked as a storeman -- (.: ,·. ~ with an electrical supplier, has done boat maintenance involving --. rubbing down and anti-fouling boats on slipways, and, undertaken general maintenance work for the body corporate on the grounds and pool of the units where he resides. In this latter () \ J.1 employment he is earning $50.00 per week, although, the plaintiff gave evidence that some unit owners are concerned at Q the cost of maintenance and this income may cease shortly. I am satisfied that the plaintiff has a residual capacity to work. Such work will be part-time and will be limited -. " _. . _,. ' . ~ ' because of his age, lack of ~kills, and the residual physical ) ;< ~-, .' ·,; .:. ' .:< ;- disabilities, particularly the ongoing risk of cellulitis. '' :;. .. ,, 'I Dr. Lee in his report dated 5 June, 1989 {ex. 5) expressed the _--, ,.'• ~-:: i:. ; ,_., ( ~ ! .. :. t· --· -·. ~ 1 opinion that the plaintiff's "prognosis is not good as he will __ ;_._~ __ ;_ ;'.·.· -,:~ l, ~I' .- •..,•:,· ·-- 1 l_f·,-,. ·:~:-i ;' ~ .. L, :~_1 :~- "¥ __ ·.·~~. get recurrence of his leg infections". In my view, the swelling ; . of the feet and the cellulitis are the two factors which are -- 12 of 17 -- 1 1 going to cause ·•the : plaintiff -~the, greatest · difficulty in obtaining permanent part-time employment. The· plaintiff nas not taken advantage of rehabilitation courses offered· by the Workers' ,Compensation Board nor has he sought assistance from the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service at Southport. · The failure to do so means that there is no past experience as to the availability of work or otherwise so as to enable the court to make some assessment as to the future with any degree- of ;) precision. The failure to avail himself of these services, I am satisfied, arises from the fact that the plaintiff is a proud man and does not wis:h to be sent out to do work which he finds he cannot satisfactorily do because of his disability and is thus seen to have failed. Similarly, his refusal to join the Electrical Trades Union when pressured by the Union to do so in order to continue in employment as a storeman, arose out of a stubborn pride not to be told what he had to do to be employed, ~) and not out of any financial consideration as to the cost of Union membership. The employment, although only for a limited period, was provided by a friend who was prepared to accommodate I \ ! the limitations which the plaintiff had in performing the work. The position was tailor-made for the plaintiff. Out of loyalty to the friend, industrial disputation being threatened, he resigned from the employment rather than join the Union. - . Mr. Stenson has submitted that I ought not to allow past - economic loss for the 14 months' employment thrown away. ' However, the fact is that within two weeks of resigning the plaintiff was hospitalised for six days with celluli tis and spent some weeks in rehabilitation. So too, the period of -- 13 of 17 -- 12 '.' hospi tal-isation 'at ·Bundaberg 'in May 1987- for cellulitis occurred ,_ within -the 7 14 'month, period~ >•-There is no evidence to suggest that- the• position of· electrical . storeman would have - remained available after- the first-or second period of hospitalisation during the 14 month period. I am -satisfied that. but for the : injuries received on . 7 November, 1983 the plaintiff would have been engaged -in -some employment until the date of trial. I am satisfied that -the· normal'- contingencies of life, the susceptibility of the building industry : on the Gold Coa·st tci periods of economic downturn··:. causing those working in the industry to be stood down from time to -time/ and, such sums as the plaintiff may have thrown away by giving up his employment as an electrical storeman · -are suf.:fiiciently recognised b-y .,adopting the base labourer'- s -weekly wag·e; for the purpose of calculating past economic - loss · and ignoring -higher earnings that the plaintiff had made, or might ~- have rriade, as a concrete finisher. The-pl"aintiff has received (_J incio~e ~ince the-accident -in the sum of $8,730.00 ·as appears in ex . ., 17 together with income of $20. 00-$30. 00 per week for 40 weeks' f-rom the body corporate. These amounts will be brought to·account against the sum of $74,445.80 being the calculated past- economic loss using -the base award· rate for a· labourer (ex~: 14). · In all the circumstances I assess past economic- loss .. _. :. i • .. : 'I' am lsatisfied · that the · plaintiff ·would but: for the· accident' have· worked· unti·l ..:he: was- 65 years - ofi 'age.:; .: However; having ·regard: to his: previous injuries:. and' the:: osteoarthri tfc, · - changes, I consider that it is unlikely that he would throughout ---------- ---------~ -- 14 of 17 -- ,,,---.,\ ! '•--- / 13 that period have been engaged in hea,vy labouring work. Taking into account the normal contingencies of life, the nature of the industry in· which he was employed and, its susceptibility to economic factors, his _age and lack of trade skills and the possibility of hip trouble in the future, I find that a reasonable period .during which the plaintiff would on the balance of probabilities have been fully employed would be tq age 60. The plaintiff has demonstrated, and it is the view of Mrs .. Coles and Dr. Maguire, that he has some residual capacity. I am satisfied. that ~he plaintiff wants to work and will. do so if . he has an _opportunity. Having regard to the risk of recurring bouts of cellulitis and the fact that he must rest after_ about two to_ two . and a hal,f _}?.qurs st~nd,ing, _on h._i_s.. -~e.et,,;, ~- ·- - .... . '\. the. probal;)ili ty • is that his future work will be for broken periods and that it is more likely than not the work will be in r~ the nature of maintenance and ground work or boat maint~nance jobs .similar to those which he has undertaken since the accident. At the present time the plain.tiff is earning $50. 00 per-week from the body corporate of the unit building where he lives. Mrs. Coles was of the view that the plaintiff could work on a part-time basis for three days per week .. Taking an eight hour working day a sum of $50.QO per week would be a rat~ per hour of less than $2.00. I am satisfied that the plaintiff will earn not less than_$50.00 per week on average in theJuture and that-in. all t~e circumstances a figure of $~00.00 pe~week until age_ 60 represents.a reasonable-sum.for future.~conomic loss. - -- 15 of 17 -- 14··· The plaintiff has received from· t:.he·"workers' Comperts'ation Board benefits totalling $33,794.85 in the ~eridd 8 No~embe~, 1983 - 19 July, 1985 which included gross weekly compensation of $17,940.80 (which figure includes tax payments of $2,749.42) and a partial disability payment of $14,940.00. I allow interest on half the award for pain, suffering and loss of amenities for six years and five months at 6 per cent per annum. As the plaintiff has received the sum of $14,940.00 by way of partial disability payment there will be interest on Q the sum of $20,060.00 ($35,000.00 - $14,940.00). I allow interest on past economic loss, which I have assessed at $65,000.00, on the balance after taking into account $15,191.38 which is the sum paid by the Workers' Compensation Board, excluding tax. That is, I. award interest oh the sum of $49,808.62 for a period of six years and five months at 6 per cent per annum. I assess the plaintiff's damages as follows:- (a) Pain, suffering and loss of amenities (b) Interest on past pain and suffering on $20,060.00 at 6 per cent for six years and five months (c) Agreed special damages including interest (d) Past economic loss (e) Interest on past economic loss after taken account of benefits received i.e. interest at 6 per cent on $49,808.62 for six years and five months (f) Future economic loss $200.00 per week for nine years on 5 per cent tables (g) Less amounts already paid by the Workers' Compensation Board $ 70,000.00 $ 7,723.10 $ 4,700.00 $ 65,000.00 $ 19,176.32 $ 76,000.00 $242,599.42 $ 33,794.85 $208,804.57 .( )\___.; -- 16 of 17 -- \. ) / '\\ ., 15 There will.therefore be judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $208,804.57 together with costs to be taxed. . ,. : .. ,,•, '·' :::i .. -- 17 of 17 --