RICKY KEITH ALLWOOD (plaintiff) v MILES WILSON (first defendant) And SUNCORP METWAY INSURANCE LIMITED ACN 075 695 966 (second defendant)
FILE NO/S:
S123 of 2010
DIVISION:
Trial Division
PROCEEDING:
Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court Mackay
DELIVERED ON:
22 June 2011
DELIVERED AT:
Rockhampton
HEARING DATE:
6 -7 June 2011
JUDGE:
McMeekin J
ORDER:
Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $474,170.80
CATCHWORDS:
DAMAGES – MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – – where liability admitted
McMEEKIN J: The plaintiff, Ricky Keith Allwood, claims damages for personal injuries suffered on the 23rd May 2008 in a motor cycle accident. Liability is admitted. I am required to assess damages.
Mr Allwood was born on the 17th of December 1959. He is now aged 51 years.
The Plaintiff and His Background
The defendant submitted that I should be cautious in my acceptance of the plaintiff’s testimony. There was good reason for that submission – the plaintiff seemed unprepared to provide direct answers to the most straight forward of propositions. The cause of that approach I cannot determine with certainty. His counsel, Mr Cullinane, submitted that he appeared much more relaxed when questioned in areas with which he was familiar such as his plant operating and that was so. It may be that Mr Allwood was simply suspicious of the process and thought he needed to be ever vigilant.
While I accept the need for some scrutiny of Mr Allwood’s evidence he was supported in many particulars by cogent evidence from witnesses that were impressive. Generally I thought that Mr Allwood was doing his best in an environment that he found very uncongenial.
The assessment was complicated by several problems that Mr Allwood had experienced in the years leading up to the accident. He complained of suffering the onset of industrial induced asthma in about 2002[1] due to exposure to isocyanates and toluene from a joinery business near to…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Allwood v Wilson
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Allwood v Wilson [2011] QSC 180
Case
[2011] QSC 180
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Allwood v Wilson involved a dispute where the plaintiff, Allwood, sought damages for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident caused by the defendant, Wilson, who admitted liability. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiff claimed damages for pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and economic losses such as past and future loss of earnings and medical expenses. The court was required to determine the appropriate measure of damages for these claims, considering the extent of the injuries and their impact on the plaintiff's life.
The primary legal issue before the court was the quantification of general damages for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life. The court had to assess the extent of the plaintiff's injuries and their impact on his quality of life, taking into account medical evidence and the plaintiff's personal testimony. Additionally, the court needed to consider the impact of the injuries on the plaintiff's capacity to work and earn income, which also affected the calculation of economic damages.
The court found that the plaintiff's injuries were severe and significantly impacted his ability to enjoy life and participate in activities. The court awarded damages for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life based on the severity and permanence of the injuries. The economic losses were assessed based on the plaintiff's lost earnings and medical expenses, taking into account his reduced earning capacity post-accident. The total judgment awarded to the plaintiff was $474,170.80, which included both general and economic damages.
Orders
Orders of the court
Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $474,170.80