## Facts

- Hodges was employed as a painter by Harland & Wolff, Limited, a shipbuilding company.
- In the course of his work, Hodges operated a diesel-driven air compressor.
- The spindle on the compressor caught Hodges’s clothing, tearing it and inflicting severe bodily injury, including the severing of his penis.
- Hodges sued his employer for damages for personal injury, including a claim for loss of future earnings.
- The litigation was at an interlocutory stage; liability and damages were not determined in the decision reported at 1 All ER 1086.
- The action was initially arranged to be tried by a judge alone.
- The judge at first instance later exercised discretion to order trial by a jury, despite considering authorities tending toward judge-alone trial in personal-injury cases and noting the “uniformity” consideration.
- Harland & Wolff appealed to the Court of Appeal, challenging only the mode of trial and seeking restoration of a judge-alone trial.

## Issues

1. Whether the first-instance judge properly exercised discretion in ordering jury trial in a serious personal-injury action involving a substantial claim for future loss of earnings.
2. Whether, given contemporary practice and the need for consistency in damages awards, the case should proceed as a judge-alone trial absent some special reason for a jury.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal allowed the employer’s appeal.
- The order directing trial by jury was set aside.
- The action was directed to be tried by a judge alone.

## Legal Principles

- In modern English practice, personal-injury actions are ordinarily tried by a judge alone, particularly where damages assessment is substantial and technically demanding.
- Although the court retains discretion to order a civil jury, that discretion must be exercised on recognized considerations; it is not enough that the injury is grave or emotionally charged.
- Where damages will likely require structured evaluation of future financial loss (including multipliers, actuarial material, and other calculations), judge-alone trial is generally more suitable than jury trial.
- Consistency in awards across personal-injury cases is an important consideration, and reasoned judicial assessments better enable comparison between cases.
- Appellate control over a jury’s lump-sum damages award is limited; this is a factor against using juries where the main task is careful quantification of compensation.

## Conclusion

Hodges v. Harland & Wolff, Limited holds that, in a serious workplace personal-injury claim with significant future-loss components, the normal and appropriate mode of trial is judge alone; absent a special feature calling for lay determination, a first-instance order for jury trial is an improper exercise of discretion and will be set aside on appeal.


Hodges v. Harland & Wolff, Limited, 1 All ER 1086 (1965)