Allen v Chadwick

The case of *Allen v Chadwick* involved an appeal and cross-appeal to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia concerning a motor vehicle accident. The plaintiff, Ms Chadwick, sustained severe spinal injuries resulting in paraplegia when the vehicle driven by the defendant, Mr Allen, lost control. At the time of the accident, Mr Allen had a significant blood alcohol content, and Ms Chadwick, a rear-seat passenger, was not wearing a seatbelt. The primary dispute revolved around the apportionment of damages, specifically whether reductions for the plaintiff's failure to wear a seatbelt and the defendant's intoxication were appropriate, and the quantum of damages awarded.

The legal issues before the court were whether the District Court Judge erred in declining to reduce the plaintiff's damages by 50 per cent due to the defendant's intoxication, as provided by section 47 of the *Civil Liability Act 1936* (SA). This required determining if the exception in section 47(2)(b) of the Act, which allows for no reduction if the plaintiff had no practical choice but to enter the vehicle, was correctly applied. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the Judge erred in reducing the plaintiff's damages by 25 per cent for her failure to wear a seatbelt, pursuant to section 49 of the *Civil Liability Act*, and whether the overall assessment of damages was manifestly inadequate.

The Full Court allowed the appeal in part and dismissed the cross-appeal. It found that the District Court Judge had correctly applied section 47(2)(b) of the *Civil Liability Act*, concluding that Ms Chadwick had no practical choice but to enter the vehicle driven by the intoxicated Mr Allen, thus precluding a reduction for his intoxication. However, the court disagreed with the Judge's reduction for the failure to wear a seatbelt, finding that the 25 per cent reduction was excessive. The court also adjusted various heads of damages, including gratuitous services, interest, case management, accommodation, and transport, finding the original assessment to be inadequate in certain respects.

Consequently, the judgment of the District Court was set aside. Ms Chadwick was awarded damages without any reduction for contributory negligence related to the defendant's intoxication. However, her damages were reduced in specific categories as detailed in the judgment, and the parties were to be heard further on consequential matters, including the appropriate orders and costs.