The synopsis of the case is that the Respondent while on duty which involved the servicing of the Respondents’ (sic 1st Appellants’) Crane sustained grievous injuries arising out of the 2nd Appellants’ failure as switch operator to use due care as the Respondent alleged in his working unit in that the switch operator caused the crane being serviced to be connected to the electricity from which it derives its power of mobility and functionality. Arising out of the negligent act of the Appellants the crane became agitated and caused a drum of the crane to roll over violently over the Respondents’ left foot and crushed that leg below the knee. For this he was under great pain and suffering for which he was hospitalized and this eventually led to the amputation of that leg. He issued a writ of summons claiming a considerable sum of money in the lower Court. The Appellants denied any liability insisting that what happened was an inevitable accident in that the crane energized itself. That Court dismissed his claim whereupon he appealed to the Court of Appeal which found favour and merit in his appeal but appeared not to have considered it proved the claim in respect of pain and suffering even though it made an award for damages for negligence. The Appellants appealed to this Court and the Respondent cross-appealed on the issue of damages.