Armstrong, Paul Edward (an infant by his next friend and father Armstrong, Darcy Allan) v Rudd, Andrew William

[1978] FCA 78

CATCHWORDS

D a i n a g e s - Loss of earning capaciry - Errors of fact

affecting award - Inf la t ion - Effect of t a x on income

from award.

ON APPEAL from the Supreme C o u r t of	the A u s t r a l i a n
C a p i t a l Territory

BETFlEEN	:	PAUL EDWARLI ARMSTRONG an i n f a n t by h i s
p r DARCY ALLZIN ARMSTRONG

P l a i n t i f f ( R e s p o n d e n t )

AND : ANDREW WILLIAM RUDD

- D e f e n d a n t ( A p p e l l a n t )

N o . F . C . 1 7 of 1977.

I

C o r a m	:	B r e n n a n ,	D e a n e	.S	N c G r e g o r JJ.
S y c l n e y

i

8 September 1978 .	' ,
!
I
I
I

L

I I	IN THE FEDERAL COURT	OF AUSTRALIA )
!

1

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY 1

No. F.C.17 of 1977

DISTRICT REGISTRY	1
1

DIVISION GENERAL 1

ON APPEAL from the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory

BETWEEN : PAUL EDWARD ARMSTRONG an

infant bv h i s next friend

and fathzr DARCY	ALLAN
ARMSTRONG

Plaintiff(Resp0ndent)

- AND : ANDREW WILLIAM RUDD

Defendant(Appel1ant)

ORDER

JUDGES MAICING ORDER : Brennan, Deane & McGregor JJ.

DATE OF ORDER : 8 September 1978.

WHERE MADE : Sydney.

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. Appeal allowed.

2. The defendant respondenr pay the plaintiff

appellant's costs of the appeal.
3.	Order of the Supreme Court of the Australian

Capital Territory be varied by the substitution

of the sum of $144,364.50 for the sum of

$158,364.50.

I -- -

I N THE FEDERAL COURT OF	AUSTRALIA	)
I

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

1 No. F.C.17 of 1977

DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL D I V I S I O N

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREW3 COURT OF

THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN : PAUL EDWARD ARMSTRONG

an i n f a n t by h i s next

f r i e n d a n d f a t h e r

DARCY ALLAN ARMSTRONG

P la in t i f f (Resp0nden t )

AND	: ANDREW WILLIAM RUDD
_.

Defendant (Appellant)

CORAM : Brennan, Deane and	McGregor	JJ.
8 September 1978.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BRENNAN J. :

The r e s p o n d e n t p l a i n r i f f was i n j u r e d i n a

d i s t r e s s i n g a c c i d e n t . H e was s i t t i n g i n t h e l e f t passenger

seat o f t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s v e h i c l e when it lef t t h e b r i d g e

ove r B e l l ' s Creek on t h e Araluen Road, c rashed through the

wooden r a i l l n g s a n d f e l l i n t o t h e creek bed. H e l o s t

consciousness f o r a t i m e . When he rega ined consc iousness ,

he d i scove red h i s awfu l In ju ry . H e descr lbed what he saw:

"I could j u s t see t h e wood coming o u t o f t h e c a r

from where I was. From m e it went down t o t h e

l f l o o r , o r t h e firewall i n the motor , and it j u s t

went s t r a i g h t t h r o u g h , a n d t h a t i s a l l I could

. . ./2

2.

see of it...I t r i e d t o push my back on the back

s e a t a n d move, and when I found I c o u l d n ' t I

p u t my hand behind my back and I could feel t h e

end of t h e p o s t a n d I r e a l i s e d it had gone

s t r a i g h t h r o u g h me. "

H e w a s i n s e v e r e p a i n . The p o s t , 6 inches by 4 inches ,

had en te red h i s body j u s t b e l o w t h e r i g h t I l i ac fossa and

emerged from h i s r i g h t b u t t o c k . T h e r e was a g ross

comminution of t h e r i g h t ilium, the symphysis pubis was

sepa ra t ed , t he f emora l ne rve w a s d iv lded , and gross damage

was done t o t h e r l g h t p e l v l c bone and t o t h e g l u t e a l

muscles. The r i g h t s a c r o i l i a c j o i n t was completely

d i s r u p t e d . F o r t u n a t e l y , t h e p e r i t o n e a l c a v i t y was n o t

penetrated. Four and half hours later, t h e wood was sav7n

o f f , and he was t a k e n t o h o s p i t a l by ambulance. The p o s t

was removed, and he v7as p laced unde r in t ens ive care.

This happened on 2 1 J u l y 1 9 7 4 . H e was 17.

H e sued i n t h e Supreme Court of t h e A u s t r a l i a n

Capital T e r r i t o r y t o r e c o v e r damages fo r neg l igence , and

h l s c l a i m was con te s t ed on ly as t o amount. The l ea rned

trial judge awarded him $158,364.50 (including $8,364.50

for agreed pre- t r ia l economic loss) and COSLS. Tie

a p p e l l a n t d e f e n d a n t a p p e a l s a g a l n s t t h a t award and submits

t h a t t h e award was man i fe s t ly excess ive , and was a f f e c t e d

by e r r o r s o f f a c t w h i c h led h i s Honour t o assess t h e

damages awarded a t t o o h i g h a f i g u r e .

. . . /3

!

3.

B e f o r e h i s a c c i d e n t , the respondent was an unsk i l l ed

l aboure r . H e l e f t s c h o o l as soon as he tu rned 15 , when he was

i n t h e T h i r d Form. H e d l d n o t l i k e s c h o o l , a n d h i s a c a d e m i c

s t a n d a r d w a s poor. H e g o t a j o b a s a t r a inee g reenkeepe r a t

the Canberra Grammar School , a job which involved heavy

gardening work. But he l iked sport , and he became t h e c a p t a i n

of an under- l8 rugby league t e a m p l a y i n g c o m p e t i t i o n f o o t b a l l .

H e hoped t o become a top p l aye r and , i f he was good enough, a

p r o f e s s i o n a l .

The accident changed a l l t h a t . H e s p e n t five o r s i x

months i n hosp i t a l and was a mere 7-1/2 s tone on d i scha rge ,

compared with his usual 13-1/2 s tone. H e had a permanent

paresis o f t he r igh t f emora l ne rve , and pa l sy of t h e r i g h t

lateral p o p l i t e a l n e r v e . H e was f i t t e d w i t h a c a l i p e r t o I.

a l low him t o walk, and a t f i r s t he had t o use it cons tan t ly .

Because t h e c a l i p e r r e q u i r e d him t o walk s t i f f - legged , he

s t a x t e d t o t a k e it o f f f o r p e r i o d s . On a few occasions, he

even played 9 ho le s o f go l f .

H e l o o k e d f o r work. A f t e r 13 months , h i s bro ther - in-

law, who has a small plumbing business , gave him a l i g h t

l abour ing job . H e s t a y e d t h e r e f o r a yea r , bu t he had many

a d a y o f f b e c a u s e o f t h e p a m i n h i s leg, and he could not

cont inue. There was a de lay a f te r q u i t t i n g t h i s b e f o r e h e

g o t a job on a b u i l d i n g s i te . A f t e r a few weeks he 17as l a i d

o f f because he 112s unsa t i s f ac to ry . A l though the r e sponden t ' s

e f f o r t s d e m o n s t r a t e d , a s t h e l e a r n e d t r ia l judge sa id ,

. . ./4

4 .

" c o u r a g e , s t o i c i s m a n d t e n a c i t y " , h i s i n j u r i e s p r e c l u d e d

h i s r e t a i n i n g employment. F i n a l l y , o n e o f h i s f r i e n d s ,

who was t h e manager of a w1ne bar, gave him a job as a

barman f o r t h r e e n i g h t s a week f o r f o u r o r f i v e weeks.

But t hen he was a d v i s e d t o g e t a n o t h e r c a l i p e r , and t h a t

h a s l i m i t e d h i s movements i n o r d e r t o p r o t e c t h i s r i g h t

knee. H i s knee has to be sa fegua rded and phys ica l work

which involves walk ing or s tanding	now	seems	t o b e	a t a n
end.

This seems t o have been common ground a t t h e

t r i a l . C o u n s e l f o r t h e a p p e l l a n t p u t t o him:

"Q. ... befo re w e l e a v e t h a t s u b j e c t b e c a u s e I

don ' t want it t o b e h u r t f u l t o you. But

you yourse l f , I ' m s u r e , by now - t e l l m e

i f I ' m wrong - have come t o t h e conclus ion

have you not t h a t i f you p e r s i s t i n t r y i n g

t o g e t j o b s i n v o l v i n g p h y s i c a l e f f o r t , by and

large o v e r t h e y e a r s y o u l r e j u s t n o t g o i n g t o

make it?

A. T h a t ' s t r u e .

Q. And y o u l r e g o i n g t o do worse than that .

You ' re go ing to encourage your knee to ge t worse sooner than it might otherwise?

I,

A. Yes.

The evidence adduced a t t h e t r i a l showed t h a t h i s p r o s p e c t s

of employment were minimal. The l e a r n e d t r i a l j u d g e f o u n d :

"The realistic p o s i t i o n i s t h a t i n t he A u s t r a l i a n

C a p i t a l T e r r i t o r y there i s no a v a i l a b l e economic

o u t l e t f o r t h e p l a i n t l f f and t h a t he 1s f o r

practical p u r p o s e s t o t a l l y i n c a p a c i t a t e d . "

The f i n d i n g was amply suppor ted by evidence and it founded

h is Honour ' s assessment of t h e damages f o r economic loss.

. . ./5

I

5.

The	r e l e v a n t p a s s a g e i n h i s H o n o u r ’ s r e a s o n s r e a d s :
“It is r e a s o n a b l e t o assume t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f
would bu t fo r h i s acc iden t have worked till t h e
age of 65 yea r s . H e is p resen t ly aged 20 so t h a t
t h e C o u r t i n my o p i n i o n s h o u l d c o n s i d e r t h e
d i m i n u t i o n o f e a r n i n g c a p a c l t y f o r up t o 4 5 yea r s .
Using a c t u a r i a l t a b l e s as a guide only one sees
t h a t , after h e a v i l y d i s c o u n t i n g h i s p r e s e n t
weekly n e t t e a r n i n g s f r o m $130 t o $100 and allowing
a p e r i o d of 40 y e a r s i n s t e a d o f t h e p r o b a b l e 45
y e a r s , t h e c a p i t a l sum r e q u i r e d t o b e i n v e s t e d a t
6% so as t o r e t u r n t o t h e p l a i n t i f f a sum of $100
p.w. would t o t a l i n e x c e s s o f $88 ,000 . Th i s
example, i n my op in ion , works heav i ly aga ins t t he
p l a i n t i f f f o r t h e v i c l s s i t u d e s o f l i f e b u t is a
guide t o wha t f igu re is r e a s o n a b l e f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n
unde r t h i s head . ”

This passage i s a f f e c t e d by an e r ro r wh ich a rose f rom a

m i s p r i n c i n t h e 6% t ab le s f rom which h i s Honour took a

m u l t i p l i e r . H i s Honour a d o p t e d t h e f i g u r e of 880 as t h e

m u l t i p l i e r o f t h e w e e k l y n e t t e a r n i n g s loss i n o r d e r t o

a r r i v e a t t h e capital sum of $88,000, w h e r e a s t h e c o r r e c t

m u l t i p l i e r is 808 (see t a b l e I n 40 A . L . J . 2 4 3 ) . The

co r rec t ca l cu la t ion based on $100 p e r week n e t t e a r n i n g s

y i e l d s $80 ,800, n o t $88 ,000 . It was f u r t h e r s u b m i t t e d

t h a t t h e $100 p e r week was i tself er roneous ly generous t o

t h e p l a i n t i f f . H i s Honour a r r i v e d a t t h i s f i g u r e by

d iscount ing an average ne t t weekly earn ings f igure of $130

which he arr ived a t a s f o l l o w s :

“If t h e p l a i n t i f f had not m e t w i t h t h l s a c c i d e n t

he would no doubt be still working with t h e

Canberra Grammar School. On t h e p r o b a b i l i t i e s

hls earnings would, a t t h e time of t h e h e a r i n g

o f t h e case, approximate $122 n e t t p e r week.

Llkewise he would have earned a n a d d l t i o n a l

amount each footbal l season which would have

i n c r e a s e d h i s a v e r a g e n e t t w e e k l y e a r n i n g s t o

about $130.

. . ./6

6.

It a p p e a r s t h a t h i s H o n o u r ' s f i g u r e o f $130 was too h igh .

Although the evidence is n o t p r e c i s e , it a p p e a r s t h a t , a t

the da t e o f j udgmen t , t he r e sponden t ' s ne t t ea rn ings wou ld

have been less by $10 per week o r t h e r e a b o u t s t h a n h i s

Honour found. It is p o s s i b l e , as Deane J. shows, so t o

a d j u s t t h e l e a r n e d trial judge ' s assessment of damages as-

t o e l i m i n a t e t h e i n f l u e n c e of t h e m i s p r i n t e d m u l t i p l i e r

and of the misconcep t ion a s t o t h e n e t t weekly earnings

of the respondent . That can be done by ca lcu la t ing a new

f i g u r e i n p l a c e o f t h e $88,000 which h i s Honour used t o

guide him, and by reducing the award by the same amount 8 ,

as t h e new f i g u r e fa l l s s h o r t o f $88,000. A l though tha t I

e x e r c i s e r e s u l c s i n a n award which I cons ide r appropr i a t e ,

I r e a c h t h a t r e s u l t b y a d i f f e r e n t p a t h .

E r r o r s i n t h e f a c t o r s u s e d t o c a l c u l a t e t h e

gu id ing f igu re o f $88,000 do not necessar i ly demonst ra te

e i t h e r t h a t t h a t f i g u r e is an inappropr ia te gu ide , or

t h a t t h e award of the learned trial judge was a f f e c t e d

by e r r o r b e c a u s e h e u s e d t h e f i g u r e of $88,000 as a guide.

When a f i g u r e is s a i d t o b e u s e d as a guide , it is

d i f f i c u l t t o a s c e r t a i n w h e t h e r it d e t e r m i n e s t h e f i n a l

allowance for economic loss, or whe the r it merely

confirms an allovrance which t h e t r i a l j u d g e d e t e r m i n e s by I

r e f e r e n c e t o o t h e r f a c t o r s . However, i n t h e c o n t e x t of

t h e l e a r n e d t r i a l j u d g e ' s r e a s o n s f o r j u d g m e n t , I t h i n k

his Honour 's award must be taken to reflect t h a t g u i d i n g

f igu re , and rha t t he f ina l award con ta ins an economic loss

. . ./7

7.

I which is n e i t h e r much more n o r much less than $88,000.

Given t h a t t h e c a l c u l a t i o n of t h a t f i g u r e w a s e r roneous ,

t h e q u e s t i o n is whether $88,000 is n e v e r t h e l e s s an

appropriate a l l o w a n c e f o r p o s t - t r i a l e c o n o m i c l o s s

occasioned	by	t h e d e s t r u c t i o n	o€ t he r e sponden t ’ s ea rn ing
capac i ty .

The answer t o t h i s q u e s t i o n r e q u i r e s an

estimate t o be made of the n e t t value t o the r e sponden t

o f t h e e a r n i n g c a p a c i t y w h i c h h a s been d e s t r o y e d ( B r i t i s h

Transpor t Commission v. Gourley 119561 A.C.165) t a k i n g

i n t o a c c o u n t t h e v i c i s s i t u d e s of l i fe (Bresa tz v. P r z i b i l l a

(1962) 108 C.L.R.541 a t pp.543,544). The v i c i s s i t u d e s

inc lude the l i ke l ihood o f any rea l improvement i n the

re sponden t ’ s ea rn ings i f he had not been in jured ,expressed

as a lump sum i n t h e c u r r e n c y of t h e day when judgment is

given (O‘Brien v. McKean (1968) 118 C.L.R.540). The

r equ i r ed estimate i s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y t o b e b a s e d e i t h e r

upon t h e n e t t e a r n i n g s a t t h e time o f i n j u r y or t h e

e s t i m a t e d n e t t e a r n m g s w h i c h t h e p r e - i n j u r y employment

would have yielded a t the date of judgment , though a

reason t o depar t f rom these bases should appear . The

r e sponden t ’ s w i l l i ngness to work, h i s “courage , s to i c i sm

a n d t e n a c i t y ” , h i s p e r s o n a l i t y and s p o r t i n g c o n t a c t s are

fac to r s wh ich war ran t an estmate o f t h e v a l u e of t h e

respondent ’s earn ing capac i ty which is n o t r e s t r i c t e d

t o a c a l c u l a t i o n of t h e n e t t e a r n m g s from a job which

he he ld a t the age o f 17 . Hls Honour t h o u g h t t h a t a n

... /8

8.

assessment based on $100 p e r week n e t t "works heavily

a g a i n s t t h e p l a i n t i f f f o r t h e v i c i s s i t u d e s o f l i fe" and

I r e s p e c t f u l l y a g r e e . H i s Honour approached t h e assessment

of economic loss b y e s t i m a t i n g t h e f u t u r e n e t t ea rn ings

which t h e exercise o f t h e d e s t r o y e d e a r n i n g c a p a c i t y

would have produced (see Sharman v. Evans (1977) 13 A.L.R.

57 a t p .78 ) , and by d i scoun t ing fu tu re expec ted n e t t

ea rn ings (see Dessent v. Commonwealth of Australia (1977)

13 B.L.R.437 a t p .447) . In mak ing the ca l cu la t ion

required by an approach of t h i s k i n d , it wou ld no t be r igh t

to adopt any sum below $100 p e r week. O f coursel

s u b s t a n t i a l i n c r e a s e s i n real earnings which can be

p r e d i c t e d o n l y f o r t h e d i s t a n t f u t u r e l o s e some

s i g n i f i c a n c e when	t h e i r v a l u e	i s	discounted back	t o t h e
date of judgment.

It is n e c e s s a r y t o e n s u r e t h a t t h e p r o c e d u r e

of d i scount ing accords wi th , and is n o t assumed t o replace,

the p r inc ip l e s wh ich gove rn the a s ses smen t of damages for

p e r s o n a l l n j u r l e s . E l s e d l s c o u n t i n g may y i e l d a n amount

of b e g u i l i n g b u t s p u r l o u s s p e c i f i c l t y .

Why i s it necessa ry t o d i s c o u n t f u t u r e n e t t

e a r n m g s a t a l l ? C l e a r l y It i s because the award of

damages r e s u l t s i n t h e i m m e d i a t e payment of a lump sum

which, by some form of investment , may earn increments

between the time of t h a t payment and t h e t i m e when t h e

lost earnings would have been paid in the future . To g ive I

t he in-Jured par ty an undiscounted equiva len t of fu ture

I

I

. . -/9 I

9.

n e t t ea rn ings would over-compensate him because he would

be awarded also the increments t o t h e c a p i t a l sum.

Discoun t ing r educes the cap i t a l sum so t h a t , w i t h t h e

increments it may earn over t i m e , it could provide no

more than the r ecu r ren t paymen t s o f ne t t ea rn ings wh ich

would have been received over the same time i f t h e

p l a i n t i f f ’ s e a r n i n g c a p a c i t y h a d n o t b e e n t o r t i o u s l y

des t royed or impaired. The rate o f d i s c o u n t i n g t o b e

adopted is, w i t h i n limits, a m a t t e r o f d i s c r e t i o n

(Hawkins v. Lindsley (1974) 49 A.L.J.R.5). But t he re are

some p r inc ip l e s wh ich shou ld be bo rne in mind i n s e l e c t i n g

an appropr i a t e rate. Of major importance is t h e p r i n c i p l e

s e l a t i n g t o t h e r e l e v a n c e o f i n f l a t i o n t o t h e award of

damages f o r p e r s o n a l i n j u r y . I n O ’ B r i e n v. McKean, supra ,

Barwick C . J . s a i d (a t pp.546,547):

“The earning capaci ty which has been lost or

d iminished cannot , in my opin ion , command any

g rea t e r compensa t ion because in fu tu re the

purchasing power of the nominal sum it p r e s e n t l y

e a r n s will be ma in ta ined by an inc rease in the

nominal reward for i ts e x e r c i s e . I n d e e d , i f

t h a t were capac i ty wh ich has been lo s t shou ld be wor th n o t l i k e l y t o h a p p e n , t h e p r e s e n t

much less because i t s e f f e c t i v e r e t u r n i n terms

of what it will purchase th roughou t t he fu tu re

would be a d imin i sh ing quan t i ty . ”

If i n f l a t i o n t h r e a t e n s t h e real va lue of t h e judgment

c r e d i t o r ’ s c a p i t a l f u n d ,	the	remedy	is ,	i n a	sense,	i n
h i s own hands:

I,

For t h e loss of a p r e s e n t c a p a c i t y , w i t h a l l

its i n h e r e n t p r o b a b i l i t i e s , t h e i n j u r e d p e r s o n is

t o be presently compensated by an immediate payment

of money. Upon t h e award being made, t h e s u c c e s s f u l ,

. . ./l0

10.

plaintiff becomes entitled to that money free to do

with it what he wlll. He can protect himself

against the possibilities of continuing or increasing

inflation to the same extent as any other citizen

with an investible fund. "

A discounting rate cannot therefore be appropriate if it

denies to the judgment creditor the opportunity to protect his capital from inflation, and to secure for himself an

undiminishing effective return for his lost earning \ -

capacity. To the extent to which commercial rates of

interest contain a percentage reflecting and covering

inflation, they are too high for use in discounting future

nett earnings, for it is only to the extent that investment

of the undiscounted sum may eaxn an increment more than

inflation that the sum is required to be discounted.

Otherwise the assessment would deny fair compensation. The

use of the higher rate would diminish the undiscounted sum

not only by the amount f the real increments which that

sum might earn, but also by an equivalent of the nominal

amounts which, when earned, will provide the plaintiff with

the effective return appropriate to his lost earning

capacity. Adhering entirely to the principle expressed

in O'Brien v. McKean, supra, as this Court is bound to do

(Jacobs v. Harley (1976) 50 A.L.J.R.519 per Gibbs J. at

p.5231, it is necessary to choose a dlscounting rate well

below the rates currently available (ibid., per Murphy J.

at p.528; and see Beneke v. Franklin [l9751 1 N.S.W.L.R.571

and Cookson v. Knowles L19781 2 All E.R.604 at ~p.615~616).

There is a further consideration of lesser

importance. It 1 s necessary to approach the assessment of

11.

damages with an awareness of t h e t a x a b i l i t y of income

from an invested fund, though one ought not t o endeavour

t o quant i fy and allow an amount t o c o v e r t h e tax l i a b i l i t y

(Petroleum and Chemlcal Corporat ion (Austral ia) Pty.

Limited v. Morris (1973) 47 A.L.J.R.484 a t ~ p . 4 8 5 ~ 4 8 6 ) .

It is r i g h t t o b e a r i n mind t h a t a capital sum cannot

p r o v i d e t h e e q u i v a l e n t of f u t u r e n e t t ea rn ings i f t h e

I

assumed y i e l d , r e q u i r e d f o r t h a t p u r p o s e , is taxable.

The inc idence of tax is t h e r e f o r e a factor whlch may

l eg i t ima te ly be t aken in to accoun t i n choos ing a rate

f o r t h e p u r p o s e of d i scoun t ing . These cons ide ra t ions

would lead m e t o adopt a d i s c o u n t i n g rate below 6% i n

t h e p r e s e n t case, i f I were to approach the a s ses smen t

of econon ic lo s s i n t h e same way a s t h e l e a r n e d t r i a l

I

judge approached the quest ion.

However, I p r e f e r t o exercise a d i s c r e t i o n a r y

judgment , ra ther than make a ca l cu la t ion , and I would

t e n t a t i v e l y assess t h e v a l u e of t h e r e s p o n d e n t ' s l o s t

ea rn ing capac i ty f rom the da t e of judgment a t $90 ,000 .

I t h e n c o n f l r m t h a t f i g u r e by a c a l c u l a t i o n w h i c h , i n

my view, is by no means generous t o t h e r e s p o n d e n t : u s i n g

!

5': t a b l e s , t h e p r e s e n t v a l u e of $100 per week f o r 40 y e a r s !

i s c a l c u l a t e d t o b e $89,200 (see t a b l e s i n 33 A.L.J.28).

This ten ta t ive assessment of economlc loss would

l eave	$ 6 0 , 0 0 0	t o c o v e r	t h e o t h e r h e a d s	of	damage.	I	I
I

t h i n k t h a t is too high. Al lowing, as one must, a !

s u b s t a n t i a l amount f o r t h e i n i t i a l p a i n a n d s u f f e r m g a n d

. . ./l2

, /

12. !

the trauma of his hospital treatment and the loss of

amenities, it must yet be remembered that his injuries

are those of a man with a damaged but usable right lower

limb. The injury to that limb is severe, but his

general bodlly functions are otherwise not gravely impaired.

I would place $45,000 as a tentative amount to cover these

heads of damage. I would add $8,364.50 being the sum

I

agreed as necessary to cover the pre-trial economic loss.

The sum of these tentative figures is $143,364.50.

The method adopted by Deane J. leads him mathematically to

$144,364.50. That figure appears to me to be appropriate.

I would allow the appeal with costs, and order that the

amount of the judgment for the respondent given by the

Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory be varied

by the substitution	of the sum of $144,364.50 for the sum
of $158,364.50.

!

Assoclate

.	I N THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	)
1

AUSTRALIAN	CAPITAL	TERRITORY	1	No. F.C. 17 of 1977
)

REGISTRY 1

ON APPEAL PROM THE SlJF'REhIE COURT OF THE

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN : PAUL EDWARD ARUSTRONG

a n i n f a n t by h i s n e x t

f r i e n d a n d f a t h e r

DARCY ALLAN ARhISTRONG

Plaintiff (Respondent)

-	AND :	ANDREW YlILLIAhl RUDD
Defendant (Appel lant)

CORAPYl: Brennan, Deane and iIcGregor JJ.

I

REASONS FOR JUDGhENT

+

DEANL;: J: On 21 July 1974, t h e r e s p o n d e n t , who was t h e n 1 7

y e a r s o l d , was a passenge r i n a car, d r i v e n b y t h e a p p e l l a n t ,

which c rashed through the wooden r a l l i n g s of a b r i d g e o v e r

B e l l ' s Creek Araluen some 75 miles out of Canberra and f e l l

some f o u r t e e n feet i n t o t h e c r e e k b e d b e l o w . A 6" X 4" wooden

p o s t p e n e t r a t e d t h e r e s p o n d e n t ' s body a t o r a b o u t t h e l e v e l of

-2-

the abdomen and protruded through 111s back. The respondent

remained Impaled upoc t h i s p o s t for a per iod of some 42 hours.

Apart from a n i n i t i a l l o s s o f c o n s c i o u s n e s s f o r some f i v e or

ten minutes , he was fu l ly consc ious throughout the whole of

t h a t p e r i o d . H e s u P € e r e d s e r i o u s I n J u r i e s .

The respondent sued the appel lan t I n t h e Supreme

Cour t o f the Australian C a p i t a l T e r r i t o r y f o r damages f o r

n e g l i g e n c e . L i a b i l i t y was no< d l sputed and in te r locutory

Judgment was s i g n e d i n d e i a u l t of a deIence. The matter

came on f o r d e t e r m i n a t i o n of damages. The l ea rned t r ia l Judge

awarded damages i n t h e amount of $158,364.50. The a p p e l l a n t

a p p e a l s t o this Court on t h e g r o u n d s t h a t t h e amount 01

damages so awarded was unreasonably high.

His Honour 's Judgment coptains a g r a p h i c d e s c r i p t l o n

o f t h e p l i g h t a n d suffering of the respondent dur ing the 43

hour period during whlch he remained impaled on t h e wooden pos t

and of cfPorts which the initially unsuccessh l , and € -Lna l ly success fu l ,

were made t o move him. H i s Honour's concluslon

t h a t the respondent "was in extreme paln throughout" was warranted

by the exper lence as an ev idence 31s Honour's d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t ' s

I

"horrific ordea l" was an appos i te one.

Af te r he was f i n a l l y moved, the respondent was

taken, by ambulance, t o Canberra Hospital . X-rays t a k e n s h o r t l y I

a f t e r his a r r i v a l showed g r o s s comminution 01 t h e r i g h t l l l um

and a s e p a r a t i o n oP the symphysispubls . The wooden p o s t whlch

had lmpaled the respondent had not been removed from h l s body

I

-3-

but had Opera t ion under genera l anaes the t ic been sawn t h r o u g h , i n o r d e r t o e n a b l e h i s release.

was carried ou t t o remove

i t . During t h e ope ra t ion it was found t h a t t h e femoral nerve

had been widely divided w l t h ragged contused ends. There w a s

complete disrupt ion of the r i g h t sacro-iliac jo in t . Subsequent

t r e a t m e n t i n c l u d e d s k i n g r a f t i n g t o t h e abdomen area, t h e

donor s i te b e i n g t h e r i g h t t h i g h . The respondent was confined

t o b e d , i n C a n b e r r a H o s p i t a l , f o r a p e r i o d of f i v e t o s i x

I months.

I n the course of h i s Judgment, the l ea rned t r i a l

judge ou t l ined t h e respondent’s background:

l1 The p l a i n t i f f l e f t s c h o o l a t t h e end of

t h i r d year a t t h e age of 15. H i s s c h o l a s t i c

r ecord was be low average . He was a s t r o n g h e a l t h y

a t h l e t i c l a d who was k e e n t o s e c u r e and pursue

ou t -door employmen t . Be fore h i s acc iden t he

was work ing as a groundsman /greenkeeper a t t he

Canberra Grammar School . The school bursar gave

e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f had p e r f o r m e d h i s

work v e r y l i k e l y t h a n n o t t h a t b u t f o r h i s a c c i d e n t s a t i s f a c t o r i l y and t h a t i t was more

he

would have reached leading hand status i n a r e l -

a t i v e t y s h o r t p e r i o d . T h e o u t l o o k b e f o r e h i s

, z c c i d e n t was t h a t t h i s j o b was secure so long

as the Canberra Grammar School remained”.

His Honour‘s findings of t h e physical consequences

of t h e i n j u r i e s which t h e respondent suf fe red were:

l

I I As a r e s u l t of t h e s e i n j u r i e s t h e

p l a i n t i f f s u f f e r s p e r m a n e n t d i s a b i l i t i e s . He has

t o wear a r i g h t l e g c a l i p e r w i t h a t o e r a i s i n g

d e v i c e t o p r e v e n t f o o t d r o p . T h e r e i s l o s s o f

s e n s a t i o n i n t h e t h i g h and lower l eg and he walks

w i t h a marked l i m p . He c a z n o t run. He has

a t t e m c t e d t o d i s c a r d t h e c a l i p e r from t i m e t o t i m e

but h a s f o u n d t h a t t h e k n e e l e t s h i m down on we igh t

b e a r i n g . He h a s s u f f e r e d and w i l l a l w a y s s u f f e r

c o n s i d e r a b l e p a i n i n h i s r i g h t l e g , t h e r i g h t k n e e

and h i p j o i n t s , The p e l v i s and lower back. The

- 4 -

medica2 evidence i s t h a t t h e s e d i s a b i l i t i e s a r e

permanent . Further it i s more probable than not t h a t w i t h i n t e n t o f i f t e e n y e a r s o s t e o - a r t h r i t i c changes i n h i s r i g h t k n e e j o i n t will be such

t h a t o p e r a t i v e t r e a t m e n t wilt b e r e q u i r e d e i t h e r t o

r e p t a c e t h e j o i n t w i t h a n a r t i f i c i a t o n e or t o

a r t h r o d e s e t h e j o i n t . Ia a d d i t i o n h e h a s g r o s s l y

d i s f i g u r i n g s c a r s t o h i s abdomen and tower back

which cause him considerable embarrassment" .

None of t h e s e f i n d i n g s was sub jec t ed t o s p e c i f i c a t t a c k b e f o r e

us . Ii'hile e f f e c t e d , a l l e v i a t e p a i n i n t h e j o i n t , t h e e v i d e n c e a r t h r o d e s n g o f t h e knee j o in t migh t , i f it were

was t h a t

it could r e s p o n d e n t well i n t e n s i f y t h e p a i n I n t h e lower back which the

a l r e a d y s u f f e r s . The evidence of the respondent ,

which was not cha l lenged in c ross -examinat ion , was t h a t un less

h i s l e g was l e g p r e i r e n t s h i s s t a n d i n g f o r l o c k e d i n t h e u n c o m f o r t a b l e c a l i p e r , p a i n i n the

more than a q u a r t e r of an hour

or walking for more than a qua r t e r o f a mile.

I t is a p p a r e n t t h a t t h e main component of t h e damages

which were awarded t o the respondent was damage for diminut ion

of e a r n i n g h i s Honour c a p a c i t y . I n c o n s i d e r m g t h i s h e a d o f damage,

sa id : -

.I

! I . . . t h e C o u r t a c c e p t s t h e e v i d e n c e t h a t on t h e

p r o b a b i l i t i e s it was l i k e t y t h a t i n a d d i t i o n t o

h i s r e m u n e r a t i o n a s a groundsman/greenkeeper the

p l a i n t i f f would have earned moneys as a p r o f e s s i o n a l

Rugby League footba2Zer. A t t h e t i m e of h i s

a c c i d e n t h e was c a p t a i n of an under l8 t eam play ing

c o m p e t i t i o n l e a g u e f o o t b a l 2 i n t h e A u s t r a l i a n

C a p i t a l T e r r i t o r y . I a c c e p t t h a t h e was a v e r y

t a l e n t e d f o o t b a l l e r who had t h e a b i 2 i t y t o become

a f i r s t - g r a d e s e n i o r p l a y e r i n t h e T e r r i t o r y

w i t h t h e p o t e n t i a l of s e c u r i n g a s p o t i n a C i t y

c l u b s i d e . T h i s s p o r t and i t s o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r

any f u t u r e a d v a n c e m e n t s t h a t do become a v a i l a b t e t o

p r o m i n e n t	s p o r t s m e n h a v e b e e n	l o s t	t o	t h e p l a i n t i f f
f o r e v e r .

The chances o f h im secur ing ga in fu l

!

- 5 -

empZoyment w i t h t h e g r o s s d i s a b i l i t i e s t h a t h e

p r e s e n t l y c a r r i e s and which w i l l i n c r e a s e a s t h e

y e a r s go by , i ndeed l ook g r i m . He l a c k s t h e a b i l i t y

t o hoZd down a c l e r i c a l j o b if one were avai lable .

Ile h a s p e r s i s t e n t l y a t t e m p t e d t o g a i n s u i t a b l e

e m p l o y m e n t . F i r s t , h i s b r o t h e r - i n - l a w , a plumber-

d r a i n e r i n a sma l l way gave h im l igh t l abour ing work .

He w o r k e d u l t i m a t e l y b r o k e w i t h h i s c a l i p e r f i t t e d . The c a l i p e r

and it was f o u n d a f t e r a f a i r t r i a l

t h a t t h e work was t o o much f o r t h e p l a i n t i f f w i t h

h i s d i s a b i l i t i e s . Re h a s b e e z r e g i s t e r e d f o r work

w i t h	t h e	Commonwealth Employment Service.
The o f f i c e r - i n - c h a r g e o f t h a t s e r v i c e

i n Canberra gave ev idence tha t i n t h e A u s t r a l i a n

Cap i ta2 Terr i to ry and Queanbeyan area i n March

1 9 7 7 t h e r e was 1 7 5 8 peop le reg i s t e red as unemployed

and l o o k i n g f o r work i n t h e u n s k i l l e d and semi-

s k i l l e d b r a c k e t . A g a i n s t t h a t t h e r e w e r e o n l y 5 1

I

j o b s a v a i l a b l e . T h i s h e s t a t e d means t h a t t h e r e

was an average o f 3 4 . 5 people unemployed for ever2

one j o b . in t h e c o m p l e t e l y u n s k i Z l e d b r a c k e t t h i s

p e r c e n t a g e r o s e t o 4 2 . 5 .

The p l a i n t i f f h i m s e Z f f o u n d a j o b w i t h

a b u i l d i n g company, E g l i t i s C o n s t r u c t i o n s , a s s e m b -

l i n g t u b u l a r s c a f f o l d i n g . He worked a t t h i s j o b

w i t h o u t h i s c a l i p e r b u t it was only a m a t t e r o f t i m e

be fore he had h i s e m p l o y e r s f o u n d t h a t t h e

p l a i n t i f f ' s d i s a b i l i t i e s p r e v e n c e d h i m f r o m d o i n g , .

t h i s w o r k . B u t i c d o e s d e m o n s t r a t e t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s

c u r a g e , s t o i c i s m a n d t s n a c i t y .

I

I f t h e p l a i n t i f f h a d n o t m e t w i t h t h i s

accident he would no doubt be s t i l l working w i t h

the Canberra Grammar S C ~ J O Z . On t h e p r o b a b i l i t i e s

h i s e a r n i n g s w o u l d , a t t h e t ime o f t h e h e a r i n g o f

t he case , he would have earned an additional amount	approx imate	$ 2 3 2	n e t t	p e r	w e e k .	L i k e w i s e
each

I

foo tba l l s eason wh ich wou ld have increased h i s a6erage

n e t t w e e k l y e a r n i n g s t o a b o u t $130.

I t was s u b m i t t e d on t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s b e h a l f

t h a t when c o n s i d e r i n g w h a t a m o u n t o f t h e t o t a l

amount o f general damages should be cons idered as

r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e d i m i n u t i o n of e a r n i n g c a p a c i t y i n

t h i s p a r t i b u l a r c a s e t h e C o u r t s h o u l d n o t d i s c o u n t

any such i s s i t u d e s o f amount t o a n y l a r g e ? e x t e n t f o r t h e v i c - l

l i f e a s t h e p l a i n t i f f h a s b e e n d e p r i v e d I

o f t h e c h a n c e o f a d v a n c i n g i n h i s c h o s e n f i e l d 05

s p o r t and so h a s l o s t n o t o n l y $ h e p r e s t i g e t h a t

s u c c e s s , w h i c h i n h i s c a s e was more probable than

n o t , h r i n g s t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r e a r n -

ings , therefrom. In my o p i Q i o n t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s

o f t h i s p a r t i c u l a r c a s e do warrant such an approach <

t o a l i m i t e d e x t e n t .

I t i s c l e a r t h a t on t h e e v i d e n c e t h !

p l a i n t i f f i s an odd l o t . The r e a l i s t i c F O S i t i O n

-6-

i s t h a t i n t h e A u s t r a l i a n C a p i t a l T e r r i t o r y t h e r e

i s no a v a i l a b l e e c o n o m i c o u t k t f o r t h e p l a i n t i f f

and t h a t h e i s f o r p r a c t i c a Z p u r p o s e s t o t a l l y

i n c a p a c i t a t e d . W h e t h e r t h i s p o s i t i o n w i l l change

i f c e s s i o n t h e g e n e r a l t r e n d o f t h e p r e s e n t e c o n o m i c m-

i s r e v e r s e d i n t h e f x t u r e i s d o u b t f u l . The

I

C o u r t h a s t o a s s e s s damages a t presen t day va lues .

I t i i n f l a t i o n or s t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f c o n s t r a i n e d b y a u t h o r i t y n o t t o c o n s i d e r f u t u r e

d e p r e s s i o n . I t i s reasonab le t o a s sume

would b u t for h i s a c c i d e n t have

worked till about the age of 6 5 y e a r s . He i s p r e -

s e n t l y a g e d 2 0 so t h a t t h e Court i n my op in ion shou ld

c o n s i d e r t h e d i m i n u t i o n o f e a r n i n g c a p a c i t y f o r up

t o 4 5 y e a r s . Us ing a c t u a r i a l t a b l e s a s a gu ide on ly

o n e s e e s w e e k l y n e t t e a r n i n g s	t h a t ,	a f t e r	h e a v i l y d i s c o u n t i n g h i s p r e s e n t
f rom $130 t o $100 and a l l o w i n g

a p e r i o d y e a r s , of 4 0 y e a r s i n s t e a d o f t h e p r o b a b l e 4 5

t h e c a p i t a l sum r e q x i r e d t o b e i n v e s t e d a t 6 8

so a s t o r e t u r n t o t h e p l a i n t i f f a sum o f $100

? . W . w o u l d t o t a l i n e x c e s s of $ 8 8 , 0 0 0 . Th i s example ,

z n my f o r t h e v i c i s s i t u d e s o f l i f e b u t i s o p i i l i o n , w o r k s h e a v i l y a g a i n s t t h e p l a i n t i f f

a g u i d e t o w h a t

f i g u r e i s a s s e s s i n g a proper and adequate r e a s o n a b l e f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n u n d e r t h i s

head. Whichaver way one approaches the problem o f

sum t o compensate

t h e p l a i n t i f f f o r t h e d i m i n u t i o n of h i s e a r n i n g

c a p a c i t y it i s c Z e a r t h a t a subs tan t ia l amoun t

shou ld be a l lowed under th i s head of damage".

These remarks on the question of damages for dlminut-

ion of ea rn ing capac i ty were s u b j e c t e d t o t h r e e s e p a r a t e

grounds of a t t a c k . First, it was s u b m i t t e d t h a t h l s H o n o u r ' s

gene ra l approach to the ques t ion of t h e e x t e n t t o which t h e

,

respondent ' s earn ing capac i ty had been d iminished was over-

I 4

! pess imis t ic . Second, it was s u b m i t t e d t h a t t h e f i g u r e of

$130.00 p e r week which was t a k e n t o r e p r e s e n t what would have

been the r e s p o n d e n t ' s l i k e l y a v e r a g e n e t e a r n i n g s a t t h e

time of t r i a l i f it had not been €or the acc ident was over-

s t a t e d by some $10.00 p e r week. Th i rd , it was s a i d t h a t t h e

c a p i t a l sum requ i r ed t o be inves ted a t 6% p e r annum to

r e t u r n a sum of $100.00 p e r week f o r 40 y e a r s 1s $SO,SOO.OO

and not	a	f i g u r e ' i n e x c e s s	of	$88,000.00	as s t a t e d by	h i s
Honour.

-7-

I g n o r i n g , f o r the moment, the second and th i rd

grounds of a t t a c k , I am o f t h e view t h a t h i s Honour's gene ra l

approach t o t h e q u e s t i o n o f t h e e x t e n t of d iminut ion of the

r e sponden t ' s ea rn ing capac i ty was warranted by t he ev ldence

before him and accorded with the manner i n which t h e case was

conducted on behalf of t h e a p p e l l a n t . I t was no t con te s t ed ,

on behalf of t h e a p p e l l a n t a t t h e h e a r i n g , t h a t t h e r e s p o n d e n t

I

was, i n effect , r e n d e r e d u n f i t f o r a n y work i n v o l v i n g a c t l v e

phys ica l l abour . In s t ead , i t was s u b m i t t e d t h a t t h e r e s p o n d e n t

who had l e f t school a t t h e age of 15 years (which was t h e

- .

ear l ies t age p e r m i s s i b l e ) w i t h o u t o b t a i n i n g h i s S c h o o l C e r t i f i c a t e , '

s h o u l d r e t u r n t o h i s s t u d i e s , o b t a i n t h e H i g h e r S c h o o l Cert i f icate

a n d s e e k t o o b t a i n clerical employment.

The respondent was i n t h e "D Grade" i n h i s form when

he l e f t school . He had d i s l iked schoo l for t h e "few years"

b e f o r e h e l e f t . The Manager o f a n o f f i c e of t h e Commonwealth

Employment Se rv ice (Mr. Carlon) gave evidence as t o t h e c o n t e n t

I

of a w r i t t e n a p p l i c a t i o n f o r employment whlch the respondent

. had made:

l'. . . He h a s g o t - a s e v i d e n c e d b y t h e c a r d he has

g o t v e r y cou td on ty poor r e a d i n g and wri t ing a b i t i t y . He

f i l l o u t t h o s e s e c t i o n s of t h e c a r d a t

t h i s i n i t i a t t i m e he came t o us and peop te f rom then

on had t o f i l l k h e r e s t o f t h e c a r d f o r him . . . ' l .

I t was obviously open t o hls Honour, on a s s e s s i n g t h e

respondent and t h e e v i d e n c e , t o c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e p o s s i b i l l r y

of the respondent ' s successfu l ly comple t ing the Higher School

Certif icate was so r emote t ha t it could be d i s regarded . Once

tha t conc lus ion was r e a c h e d , t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s c a s e was conducted

-8-

b e f o r e h i s Honour i n a manner which u n d e r l i n e d , r a t h e r t h a n

ques t ioned , t he ve ry se r ious d iminu t ion in ea rn ing capac i ty

which r e s u l t e d f r o m t h e r e s p o n d e n t ' s i n j u r i e s . The following

extracts from the cross-examination of the respondent by

counsel for t h e a p p e l l a n t s h o u l d serve t o i l l u s t r a t e t h e p o i n t : -

" Q . Mr. Armstrong, you remember being, I t h i n k ,

warned by Dr. Parnbach - and I d o n ' t t h i n k

warned i n a n y s i n i s t e r s e n s e b u t w a r n e d t h a t

yous leg would ge t worse wi th use?

A .	Y e s .
Q .	And t h a t y o u ' d u l t i m a t e l y h a v e t o f a c e t h e p r o s -
p e c t of c l e r i c a l t y p e work - s o m e t h i n g t h a t
d i d n ' t i n v o l v e y o u i n any subs tan t iaZ phys i ca l

a c t i v i t y ?

A . Y e s .

........ .......

Q .	.... b e f o r e we l e a v e t h a t s u b j e c t b e c a u s e I
don ' t wan t it t o b e i ? u r t f u Z t o y o u . B u t y o u
y o u r s e l f , I ' m s u r e , b y now - t e l l me if I ' m
wrong - have come t o t h e conclusion have you
n o t t h a t i f y o u p e r s i s t in t r y i n g t o g e t j o b s
i n v o l v i n g p h y s i c a l e f f o r t , b y and l a r g e o v e r
t h e y e a r s y o u ' r e j u s t not- g o i n g t o make i t?
A .	T h a t ' s t r u e .
Q.	And y o u ' r e g o i n g t o do w o r s e t h a n t h a t . Y o u ' r e
go ing to encourage your knee to ge t worse
sooner than it m i g h t o t h e r w i s e ?
A .	Yes" .

I n t h e r e s u l t , I am o f t h e v i e w t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t h a s f a i l e d

t o make good t h e a t t a c k on h i s Honour 's general approach t o

d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e e x t e n t t o w h l c h t h e r e s p o n d e n t ' s e a r n i n g capacity had been diminished as a r e s u l t o f t h e i n J u r i e s h e s u s t a i n e d .

The f igure of about $130.00 p e r week which h i s Honour

-9-

accepted as r e p r e s e n t i n g what t h e r e s p o n d e n t l s p r o b a b l e n e t

weekly earnings would have been a t t h e time of the t r i a l i f

t he acc iden t had not occurred is e x p r e s s l y s t a t e d by h l s

Honour t o be an approximate one. The evidence re levant to

t h a t f l g u r e was somewhat u n s a t i s f a c t o r y a n d t h e t r a n s c r i p t of

submiss lons wou ld ind ica t e tha t h i s Honour was n o t given t h e

b e n e f i t o f a n y t h i n g l l k e t h e a n a l y s i s of t h e re levant evidence

wh ich sen io r counse l fo r t he appe l l an t p rov ided on t h e h e a r i n g

of the appea l . I n t h e l i g h t of t h a t a n a l y s i s a n d making some

allowance f o r minor expenses which would have been incurred i n

earn ing tha t income, it is a p p a r e n t t h a t a € i g u r e of “about”

$120.00 per week n e t would have beer, a more cor rec t mathemat lca l

ou tcome.of	the	re levant	ev idence .	Adopt	ing	the	p ropor t ion	of
-	10

13 which h l s Honour a d o p t e d , t h e f i g u r e of approximately

$92.00 per week would have been more appropriate as t h e b a s i s

o f t h e ’ e x e r c i s e i n v o l v i n g a p p l i c a t i o n of a c t u a r i a l t a b l e s t h a n

t h e f i g u r e o f $100.00 p e r week which was used. The amount

r e q u i r e d t o be Inves t ed a t 6% to p roduce $92.00 p e r week f o r

40 y e a r s was $74,336.00. The r e f e r e n c e po in t , i n s o far as

actuar ia l t a b l e s were concerned, would, on the approach which

h l s Honour adopted, more appropriately have been a f i g u r e

“ i n excess of $74,000.00“ t h a n t h e I i g u r e “ i n excess of $88,000”

which h l s Honour adopted. I t is common g round t ha t , appa ren t ly

as a result of a typographical error i n a se t of actuarial

t a b l e s which was i n c u r r e n t u s a g e , the f i g u r e “ i n excess of

$88,000.00” was, i n any event , mathematical ly wrong and shouid

!

have been $80,800.00.

.

His Honour d id no t expres s ly state t h e amount which

I

-10-

he concluded t o b e a p p r o p r i a t e i n r e s p e c t of damage for

diminut ion of earning capaci ty . After t h e extract from his

judgment set out above, he p roceeded to cons ide r o the r heads

of damage and t o award an o v e r a l l g l o b a l amount of $150,000.00,

wlthout i n t e r n a l subd iv i s ion , i n r e s p e c t of a l l damages o t h e r

than past economic loss . His Honour s a i d :

I1 In a d d i t i o n , h i s d i s a b i l i t i e s h a v e had and

will h a v e f o r t h e r e s t of h i s l i f e a marked e f f e c t

on h i s e n j o y m e n t o f l i f e . He h a s s u f f e r e d and w i l l

c o n t i n u e t o s u f f e r e x t r e m e p a i n a n d d i s c o m f o r t .

A s s t a t e d t h e p a i n i n h i s r i g h t k n e e w i l l undoubsedly

p r o g r e s s i v e l y i n c r e a s e . On t h e p r o b a b i l i t i e s h i s

lower back pain w i l l a l s o i n c r e a s e a s a r e s u l t of

h i s now abnormal ga i t and pos ture . In a d d i t i o n h e

h a s t h e g r o s s Q n s i g h t l y and s c a r r i n g t o h i s b o d y w h i c h i s e x t r e m e Z y

embarrass ing to h im. The in jur ies were

- h o r r i b l e and f r i g h t e n i n g and such scars no doubt

are a c o n s t a n t r e m i n d e r t o h im o f t h e a c c i d e n t

i t s e l f , t h e agnosiizg period when he was impaled

on t h e p o s t , d o e s n o t r e f e r t h e t o a l l l e n g t h y p e r i o d o f h o s p i t a l i s a t i o n

and a l l t h e a f t e r m a t h t h o s e e v e r y d a y p l e a s u r e s o f t h e o r d e a l . The Court

t h a t t h i s v i r i l e , ou tgoing young man could have ,

b u t f o r h i s a c c i d e n t , l o o k e d f o r w a r d t o and which

have been f o r e v e r denied him.

I t was a g r e e d t h a t t h e n e t t t o s s of wages

f r o m t h e d a t e o f t h e a c c i d e n t t o t h e d a t e o f h e a r i n g

was $7,500 and t h a t t h e o u t - o f - p o c k e t e x p e n s e s f o r

hosp i ta7 . and med ica l expenses and the l i ke to za l

$5,031.90. Of t h i s l a t t e r sum t h e d e f e n d a n t h a s ,

paid the amount of $4,167.40 so t h a t $ 8 6 4 . 5 0 i s

s t i l l o u t s t a n d i n g .

The proper f i gure to adequa te l y compensaze

t h e p l a i n t i f f f o r h i s i n j u r i e s and h i s d i s a b i l i t i e s ,

t h e d i m i n u t i o n o f h i s e a r n i n g c a p a c i t y , t h e l o s s o f

t h e e n j o y m e n t o f l i f e and f o r t h e p a i n and s u f f e r i n g

b o t h p a s t , p r e s e n t and f u t u r e and f o r t h e g r o s s

d i s f i g u r i n g aiid e m b a r r a s s i n g s c a r r i n g t o h i s y o u n g

body by way o f genera l damages i s , i n my o p i n i o n ,

t h e sum $150,000. The outs tanding ecozomic loss

t o t a l s $ 8 , 3 6 4 . 5 0 . A c c o r d i n g l y t h e r e w i l l be a v e r d i c t f o r

t h e p l a i n t i f f f o r $158,364.50".

H i s Honour's approach of awarding a g l o b a l amount as compensation

-1 1-

f o r t h e r e s p o n d e n t ' s i n j u r i e s a n d t h e i r c o n s e q u e n c e s w i t h o u t

any e x p r e s s i n t e r n a l s u b d i v i s i o n o f t h a t amount may accord

wi th the v iews expressed by Barmi ck C. J. , i n Arthur Robinson

(Graf ton) Pty. Limited v . Carter((1968) 122 C.L.R. 649 at

pp. 660-661) 385 a t p . and reaffirmed i n Ruby v. Marsh (.(1975) 6 A.L.R.

391) . Those views of the Chief Justice of Australia

have not, however, been shared by o t h e r members of t h e High

Court (see Sharman v. Evans (1977) 13 A.L .R . 57 a t pp.64-65

and p. a t pp.446-7 69; D e s s e n t v. The Commonwealth (1977) 13 A.L.R. 437

I

and Gamser v. Nominal Defendant (1977) 13 A . L . R .

387 a t pp. 389-90 and p . 391) . S ince the dec is ion of the High

Court in Griff i ths v . Kerkemeyer (1977) 15 A.L.R. 387) which

was n o t . r e p o r t e d u n t i l a f t e r h i s Honour del ivered judgment

i n t h e p r e s e n t matter, it s h o u l d b e a c c e p t e d t h a t t h e p r e f e r a b l e

approach fo r a Judge assessing damages in a case such as t h e

present is t o show the amount which he a l l o c a t e s , t e n t a t i v e l y

o r f i n a l l y , t o each head of damage.

I t was submi t ted , on b e h a l f o f t h e a p p e l l a n t , t h a t

i t was t h e f i g u r e r e a s o n a b l e t o assume, from his Honour ' s judgment , th&t 3 , c

of $150,000.00 which he awarded t o c o v e r a l l

damages o the r t han in r e spec t o f pas t economic loss inc luded

some $90,000.00 on account of damages fo r d iminu t ion of ea rn ing

capaci ty and some $60,000.00 in r e spec t o f o the r heads o f

damage. Careful reading of h i s Honour's judgment has f a i l e d

t o convince m e t h a t t h i s is n e c e s s a r i l y so. H i s Honour

e x p r e s s l y s t a t e d t h a t h i s use o f a c t u a r i a l tables was "as a

guide only" and remarked t h a t the example which he set o u t

"works h e a v i l y a g a i n s t t h e p l a i n t i f f for t h e v i c i s s i t u d e s o f

-12-

l i f e " . I t is, i n my view, impossible t o see as i m p l i c i t i n

his Honour 's judgment any conclusion that a f igure of approx-

imately $90,000.00 was inc luded i n t h e o v e r a l l award of

$150,000.00 as b e i n g a p p r o p r i a t e i n r e spec t o f damages f o r

d iminut ion of earn ing capac i ty . I t does, however , appear to

me t h a t t h e i d e n t i f i e d error i n t h e r e f e r e n c e f i g u r e was c l e a r l y

r e f l e c t e d j n t h e o v e r a l l award of damages i n t h e sense t h a t

I.

I c o n s i d e r t h a t , " i n excess of $74,000.00" i f h i s Honour had s u b s t i t u t e d t h e € i g u r e

f o r t h e f igu re " in excess of $8S,000.00't

which he s t a t e d h e a c c e p t e d "as a g u i d e t o w h a t f i g u r e is

r e a s o n a b l e f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n " I n r e s p e c t o f damages f o r d m i n u t -

i on of e a r n i n g c a p a c i t y , t h e amount of damages i n r e s p e c t o f

I

tha t head of damage which was i n c l u d e d i n t h e o v e r a l l amount

I awarded would have been reduced by some $14,000.00 a n d t h a t

t h e o v e r a l l	amount awarded would have been correspondingly
reduced.

A ques t ion which has caused me c o n s i d e r a b l e d i f f l c u l t y

is whether i t is s u f f i c i e n t l y a p p a r e n t from his Honour ' s

.

judgment t h a t t h e effect of t h e i d e x t i f i e d e r r o r i n the

r e fe rence f igu re de r ived f rom the u s e o f a c t u a r i a l t a b l e s c a n

I

b e s u f f i c i e n t l y i s o l a t e d t o a v o i d v i t i a t i n g t h e w h o l e o f h i s

Honour's award of damages i f t h e amount awarded , a f t e r co r rec t -

' i o n o f t h e e r r o r , is no t o the rwise p rope r ly open to a t t ack .

I h a v e , w i t h c o n s i d e r a b l e h e s i t a t i o n , come t o the conclus ion

t h a t it can . A r educ t ion of $14,000.00 i n t h e o v e r a l l amount

awarded will, i n my v iew, co r rec t t h e e r r o r r e s u l t i n g f r o m

acceptance of the f igure of approximately $130.00 per week and

t h e m i s t a k e i n t h e a c t u a r i a l c a l c u l a t i o n i tself .

-13-

The r e s u l t l n g amount of $144,364.50 o v e r a l l damages,

inc luding damages €or past economic loss, is no t less than the

o v e r a l l amount which, i f t h e matter were a t l a r g e b e f o r e us,

I shou ld cons ide r appropr i a t e i n a l l t h e circumstances of

t h i s case. I t s h o u l d n o t , i n my view, be disregarded by

reason of its being unduly low o r o n t h e b a s i s t h a t t h e r e

is an element of u n f a l r n e s s t o t h e r e s p o n d e n t 1.n reducing

the award made by deduct ing the amount of $14,000.00 which

I c o n s i d e r c a n p r o p e r l y b e a t t r i b u t e d t o the e r r o r i n t h e

I

reference f i g u r e . There remalns €or c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h e q u e s t i o n

whether t h a t r e s u l t i n g amount is, i n any event , so unduly hlgh

as t o w a r r a n t t h e f u r t h e r i n t e r v e n t i o n o f t h i s C o u r t .

H i s Honour ' s f l nd ings r e l evan t t o damages for

diminut ion of earning capaci ty have been set out above. Apart

from t h e e r r o r s i n c a l c u l a t i o n t o which reference has been

made, they have not been shown t o b e , i n any r e s p e c t , e i t h e r

aga ins t t he ev ldence or without adequate foundat ion in the

evldence. I see no g rounds fo r d l s tu rb lng them. On these

€ indings , the respondent who was, as a resu l t o f h i s i n j u r l e s ,

unemployed a t t h e time of the hea r ing wou ld , . bu t for those

in ju r i e s , have been ea rn lng approxmate ly $120.00 p e r week

n e t . H i s p r o s p e c t s of employment were, as a r e s u l t o f h i s

i n j u r i e s , grim. I t was accepted by counse l fo r t he appe l l anx ,

i

i n t h e c o n d u c t o f t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s case, t h a t employment

" invo lv ing phys ica l e f fo r t " was p r e c l u d e d e v e n i f a v a l l a b l e

and it was s u i t a b l e employm&nt l a y suggested that i n h l s r e s u m i n g t h e r e s p o n d e n t ' s best hope of obtalnlng

his s t u d i e s i n an

e f f o r t t o ob ta in the Higher School Cert l f icate . A s has been

I.

I

I

-14-

s a i d , t h e l e a r n e d trial judge was e n t i t l e d t o c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e

respondent ' s chances of successfu l ly comple t ing the Higher

S c h o o l C e r t i f i c a t e were remote.

!

To accept an earning rate of $120.00 p e r week s u b j e c t

- only t o an increase of 55.00 t o $10.00 p e r week when he reached

t h e s t a t u s of a n "older employee" a t Canberra Grammar School ,

as r e p r e s e n t i n g a f a i r a s ses smen t of t h e a s p i r a t i o n s w h i c h t h e

respondent could legi t imately have held as r e g a r d s f u t u r e

e a r n i n g c a p a c i t y is t o accept as t h e measure of h i s f u t u r e

economic poten t ia l the pos i t ion which he had a l ready achieved

at t h e age of seventeen. Such an approach is p la in ly , f rom

t h e r e s p o n d e n t ' s p o i n t of view, an unenthus ias t ic one . On

tha t approach and on t h e b a s i s of h i s H o n o u r ' s f i n d i n g s , t h e

f i g u r e o f $92.00 p e r week n e t was, i f t h e p r o b a b l e € u t u r e

e f f e c t s of i n f l a t i o n b e i g n o r e d , of some r e l e v a n c e t o t h e

assessment of damages in respec t of d iminut ion of earn ing

I

capac i ty . As has been seen , re fe rence t o actuar ia l tables

d i s c l o s e s t h a t the amount which, i f i n v e s t e d a t G% p e r annum,

would, as a r e s u l t o f t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of b o t h c a p i t a l a n d

income, produce $92.00 p e r week gross f o r 40 years is $74,336.00.

The r e su l t de r ived f rom such a n a p p l i c a t i o n o f a c t u a r l a l tables

has been accepted as r e l e v a n t i n many cases o f t h e h i g h e s t

a u t h o r i t y . I t has l i t t l e t o recommend it from t h e p o i n t of

view of a p l a i n t i f f i n a case such as t h e p r e s e n t . The

i n g r e d i e n t whvhlch is f e d i n t o t h e a c t u a r i a l t a b l e is a n e t

( i . e . a f t e r t a x ) week ly f i gu re . I f t he amount which r e s u l t s

from t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e t a b l e s were a p p l i e d t o the purchase

of a n a n n u i t y f o r 40 years , the amounts received by way of

-15-

annuity would be a l l taxable. If one treats the investment

as a r e t u r n is more than twice n o t i o n a l o n e , t h e t a x a b l e i n t e r e s t component of t h e u l t l m a t e

t h e c a p i t a l component. The ra te of

tax will no t be t h e rate a p p l i c a b l e i f the respondent were i n

r e c e i p t o f no o t h e r income: the bas i s under ly ing the exercise

is t h a t t h e r e s p o n d e n t will be I n rece ip t of o ther income.

I t may b e s a i d t h a t o n e s h o u l d n o t assume a g a i n s t a defendant

t h a t t h e cur ren t l e v e l o f t a x a t i o n will be always with u s . But

t h a t is prec ise ly what 1s done aga ins t a p l a i n t i f f i n t a k i n g

t h e a f t e r - t a x f i g u r e as t h e b a s i s OP t h e actuar ia l c a l c u l a t l o n .

Again, i t migh t be sa id tha t a ra te of 6% p e r annum is, as

a g a i n s t a cond l t ipns wh ich ope ra t e aga ins t defendant, unduly low. I n t he absence o f i n f l a t iona ry ,

a p l a l n t l f f a n d f o r w h i c h t h e

I actuarial c a l c u l a t i o n makes n b p r o v i s i o n , t h a t is simply not

so. H i s Honour made an allowance i n t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s f a v o u r

i n respec t of adverse cont ingencies such as s i c l m e s s , e a r l y

death and a measure of unen~ployment by r e d u c i n g t h e r e s p o n d e n t ' s

projected working l i f e f rom 45 yea r s t o 40 y e a r s . I n my new, 4

t h e f i g u r e of $74,336.00 cannot, t o t h e e x t e n t t o which it 1s

r e l e v a n t t o t h e q u e s t i o n of t h e a p p r o p r i a t e amount t o be

awarded on account of diminut ion in earning capaci ty , properly

be regarded, respondent ' s po in t of on h i s H o n o u r ' s f l n d i n g s , as belng, f rom the

view, a generous one or as s t a t i n g t h e

I

upper limit of t h e amount of damages which could reasonably be

awarded I n r e s p e c t of t h a t h e a d of damage ( s e e , as t o the

relevance o f t he inc idence of f u t u r e income t ax i n t h e asses-

ment of damages fo r d iminu t ion o f ea rn ing capac i ty , Shaman

v. Evans (1977) 13 A . L . R . 57 a t pp. 7s and 85-86 a n d n o t e , t o

the cont ra ry , Pe t ro leum & Chemical Corporat ion (Australia)

-16-

P t y . Limited v . Morris (1973) 47 A . L . J . R . 484 a t pp. 485-6).

A t one stage i n t h e course of h i s able submissions,

s en io r counse l for t h e appe l l an t sugges t ed t h a t an award of

$90,000.00 would r e s u l t i n t he respondent , a t p r e s e n t rates

df i n t e re s t , hav ing an income of some $9000.00 per year. I

do no t h i g h r a t e s o f i n t e r e s t r ega rd t ha t exercise as being helpful . The c u r r e n t

are i n p a r t a r e f l e c t i o n o f a n t i c i p a t e d

i n f l a t i o n . I t would be q u i t e wrong t o take in to accoun t t h e

c u r r e n t rates of i n t e r e s t a n d t o ignore t he effects o f i n f l a t -

i on which is p a r t l y r e s p o n s i b l e for them (see Sharman 1 7 . Evans,

supra , a t pp. 77-78). Indeed, i f i n f l a t i o n is t a k e n i n t o

account, t h e ne t i ncome , a f t e r t axa t ion , on the sum of $90,000

inves t ed a t 10% per annum is u n l i k e l y t o exceed t h e diminution

i n t h e rea l va lue of t h e c a p i t a l i n v e s t e d .

H i s H o n o u r ' s f i n d i n g i n r e l a t i o n t o damages o t h e r

t h a n f o r d i m i n u t i o n i n e a r n i n g capacity and past economic

l o s s are summarized i n t h e first paragraph of	the e x t r a c t
from h i s jvdgment which has been las t set out .	Those f ind-

i ngs mere, i n my view, J u s t i f l e d by t h e evidence. To t h e

I	matters there ment ioned , i t is n e c e s s a r y t o add f u t u r e o u t - goings which t h e respondent will be called upon t o bea r as t h e r e s u l t o f the i n j u r i e s he s u s t a i n e d i n t h e acc iden t . Fo r
example, i t is apparent t h a t , i n the y e a r s ahead, h i s i n j u r i e s
will lead t o t h e i n c u r r i n g o f medical a n d , p o s s i b l y , h o s p i t a l
expenses.

.

On h i s Honour ' s f i nd ings , t h e respondent was e n t i t l e d

-17-

t o damages d u r i n g t h e o r d e a l o f t h e a c c i d e n t a n d f o r t h e s h a t t e r i n g p a l n a n d s u f f e r i n g he experlenced

its immediate af termath,

f o r t h e p a i n , s u f f e r i n g a n d l o s s o f e n j o y m e n t o f l i f e he

exper ienced dur ing the ensuing 5 t o 6 mon ths ' hosp i t a l i za t ion ,

f o r	t h e p a i n , s u f f e r i n g , d i s a b l l i t y a n d i n c o n v e n i e n c e w h i c h
he	w i l l s u f f e r f o r t h e rest o f h i s l i f e , f o r t h e los t of

e n j o y m e n t o f t h e a c t i v i t i e s w h i c h h e m o s t e n j o y e d i n h i s

you th and fo r t he loss or dunlnution of enJoyment of those

ac t lv i t i e s i n which he will, ~n t h e f u t u r e , b e u n a b l e t o

p a r t i c i p a t e o r o n l y a b l e t o p a r t i c i p a t e w i t h d i m i n i s h e d e n J o y -

ment or a b i l i t y . I n t h e c o n t e x t of t h e p a i n , s u f f e r i n g a n d

d i sab i l i t y wh ich has . r e su l t ed and will resu l t f rom the r e sponden t ' s '

I

i n j u r i e s , one is perhaps prone t o l o s e s l g h t of what h i s Honour

descr ibed as t h e " g r o s s s c a r r i n g t o h i s body which 1s extremely

uns ight ly and embarrass lng to him". The respondent is e n - t i t l e d

t o compensation i n respect of t h e eifect o f t h a t s c a r r i n g on

h is en joyment of l i f e . P l a i n l y , t h e r e s p o n d e n t was e n t i t l e d

t o very substantial damages i n a d d i t i o n t o damages i n r e s p e c t

I

of diminution of e a r n i n g c a p a c i t y .

Damages f o r o u t s t a n d i n g p a s t e c o n o m i c l o s s were

agreed i n t h e f l g u r e of $8364.50.

The conclus ion to which I have come is t h a t t h e o v e r -

a l l f igure of $144,364.50, wh ich r e s u l t s f r o m t h e a d j u s t m e n t

of t h e amovnt awarded by h i s Honour t o overcome t h e r e s u l t

o f t h e e r r o r s of mathemat ica l ca lcu la t ion to which re€erence

has been made, cannot properly be seen as being so unduly hlgh

as t o w a r r a n t t h e f u r t h e r i n t e r f e r e n c e of th i s Cour t . Whether

-18-

;he matter be approached on a g l c rbal bas :is or by a n a l y s i s o P

i nd iv idua l heads of damage, I d o n o t c o n s i d e r t h a t t h a t overal l

fig:me r e p r e s e n t s an e r roneous assessment of t h e damages t o

r h i c h t h e r e s p o n d e n t is e n t i t l e d or an amount d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e

t o t h e r e s p o n d e n t ' s i n j u r i e s .

In t h e result, I c o n s i d e r t h a t t h e a p p e a l s h o u l d b e

allowed and t h a t t h e v e r d i c t i n favour of the responderi t should ,.

be reduced t o $144,364.50. The o r d e r for c o s t s made by t h e

t r i a l judge should n o t be d i s tu rbed . 1 would o r d e r t h a t t h e

respondent pay one-half	of	t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s c o s t s	of	t h e
appezl .

I

l Dated : 7- 9 - 78

i

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

1

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY	>
) No. F.C. 1 7 o f 1 9 7 7
REGISTRY	i

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF

1'HE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERKlTORY

BETWEEN :	PAUL EDWARD ARMSTRONG
an i n f a n t by h i s n e x t
f r i e n d and f a t h e r
DARCY ALLAN ARMSTRONG

P la in t i f f (Respondent )

AND:

- ANDREW 14ULLIAM RUDD

Defendant (Appellant)

I

CORAM : Brennan, Deane and McGregor JJ.

8 September 1 9 7 8

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

McGREGOR J : PAUL EDIVARD ARMSTRONG ( h e r e i n a f t e r c a l l e d " t h e

respondent") sued ANDREW WILLIAM RUDD ( h e r e i n a f t e r c a l l e d " t h e

appel lant"] for damages and p e r s o n a l i n j u r i e s r e c e i v e d i n a

motor vehicle accident which took place on the 21st J u l y 1 9 7 4

on the Araluen Road n e a r B e l l ' s Creek i n New South Wales. The

h e a r i n g i n t h e Supreme Cour t o f the Aus t ra l ian Capi ta l Ter r i to ry

a t which the only i ssue was t h e amount of damages t o be awarded

t o t h e p l a i n t i f f , was on the 23rd May 1 9 7 7 ; Judgment being

given on the 28th September 1 9 7 7 for the respondent i n the sum

o f $158,364.50.

!

2

I n t h i s a p p e a l t h e a p p e l l a n t c o n t e n d s t h a t sum

was unreasonably high and seeks a new t r i a l o r r e q u e s t s

t h a t t h e amount thereof be decreased to such ex ten t as the

Court thinks The respondent was born on t h e 9 t h i s j u s t and e q u i t a b l e .

November 195G

1

in Canberra, and was educated up t o and including Third Form

and l e f t s c h o o l i n 1 9 7 3 . He worked t h e r e a f t e r a s a roof

t i l e r f o r f o u r months; then took up a p o s i t i o n as a t r a i n e e

green-keeper a t the Canberra Grammar School which job he

r e t a i n e d up t o t he t ime o f t he acc iden t . His work t h e r e

cons is ted of mowing l awns , l ook ing a f t e r p l an t s and gene ra l

green-keeping duties. Compcndiously h i s work was dcscr ibed

as "gardening and ground maintenance more t h a n j u s t c u t t i n g

g r a s s f o r g o l f and bowling grcens". This work he was a b l e

t o do t o h i s employer. with i n t e r e s t and apparent ly with complete sat isfact ion

Had he chosen to do s o , i t appears, he could

s t i l l have remained i n t h a t employment.

The c i rcumstances of the acc ident were q u i t e

h o r r i f y i n g . The respondent , a f r o n t - s e a t p a s s e n g e r i n a

motor vehicle was i n e f f e c t i m p a l e d on po r t ion o f a br idge

wi th wh ich t he veh ic l e co l l i ded . The rea f t e r t he veh ic l e f e l l

down i n t o a creek and the piece of wood with which he was

impaled, measuring 4 " X G" became imbedded i n t h e c r e e k , s o

t h a t h e was p i n n e d t h u s t o t h e c r e e k b e d . I n i t i a l l y h e f e l t

no pain but then real ised what had happened and fel t severe

pa in and undoub ted ly g rea t f ea r a s t o h i s p red icamen t .

Four and one-half hours elapsed before h e was ab le

3

t o h e t a k e n from the car, still however w i t h the wood

through his body. T h i s i s desc r lbed In some d e t a i l .

He remembered b e i n g t a k e n t o t h e h o s p l t a l and apparently

t h e r e a f t e r was unconsc ious un t i l a f t e r t he ope ra t ion wh ich

removed t h e wood.

The l ea rned t r i a l judge has found tha t i n t h e

acc ident he suf fered a gross communition of the right i l ium

and a separat ion of the symphysis pubis . Further , dur ing

the ope ra t ion it was found that the femoral nerve had been

widely divided with ragged contused ends, the compound

f r a c t u r e o f t h e r i g h t i l i u m was ex tens ive and he had complete

d i s r u p t i o n o f t h e r i g h t s a c r o - i l i a c j o i n t .

The respondent remained i n t h e h o s p i t a l f o r some

i i v e months. Unquestionably the period spent i n t h e

h o s p i t a l would have been painful, frustrating and worrying,

p a r t i c u l a r l y f o r	a	man	who	had	t o t h i s p o i n t l e d a n a c t i v e
l i f e .

The d i s a b i l i t i e s from which t h e p l a i n t i f f s u f f e r s

as described and accepted by t h e l e a r n e d t r i a l j u d g e s h o u l d

b e r e - s t a t e d :

“As a p l a i n t i f f s u f f e r s p e r m a n e n t d i s a b i l i t i e s . r e s u l t o f t h e s e i n j u r i e s t h e

He has t o wear a r i g h t l e g c a l i p e r w i t h

a t o e r a i s i n g d e v i c e t o p r e v e n t f o o t d r o p .

There i s lo s s o f s e n s a t i o n i n t h e t h i g h

and lower leg and he walks wlth a marked

limp. He cannot run. He has a t tempted

I

t o d i s c a r d t h e c a l i p e r from time to t ime

but has found tha t the knee le t s him down

4

on weight bear ing. He has su f f e red

and will p a i n i n h i s r i g h t a lways suf fer cons iderable

l e g , t h e r i g h t knee

and h i p j o i n t s , t h e p e l v i s and lower

back. The med ica l ev idence i s t ha t

t h e s e d i s a b i l i t i e s a r e p e r m a n e n t . *

Fur the r i t i s more probable than not

t h a t w i t h i n t e n t o f i f t e e n y e a r s

o s t e o - a r t h r i t i c c h a n g e s i n h i s r i g h t

knee j o i n t will be such tha t opera t ive

t rea tment will b e r e q u i r e d e i t h e r t o

r e p l a c e t h e ~ o i n t w i t h an a r t i f i c i a l

one o r t o a r t h r o d e s e t h e J o i n t . I n

a d d i t i o n h e h a s g r o s s l y d i s f i g u r i n g

s c a r s t o h i s abdomen and lower back

which cause him considerable embarrassment".

I

I have been unable to f ind the evidence upon

which His Honour r e l i e s f o r t h e s t a t e m e n t t h a t t h e

respondent will a lways suf fe r cons iderable pa in . Any

ar throdes ls of	the	knee	would	be	expec	ted	to save	him
pa in .

As a r e s u l t o f h i s c o n d i t i o n h e h a s l o s t t h e

a b l l l t y t o cont inue t o p l a y a s a League foo tba l l e r t hough

i t i s doubtful whether , on the und i spu ted f ac t s , t he ca ree r

wh ich the l ea rncd t r i a l j udge p red ic t ed fo r him in t h i s

s p o r t would have ensued.

Undoubtedly he has been deprived of s o much a s

was open t o him a s a f i t a c t i v e young man doing an outdoor

l

I	. -
i
I

I I'

r

3

job and i n t e r e s t e d i n v i g o r o u s s p o r t . N e v e r t h e l e s s h e was

a b l e , a f t e r t h e a c c i d e n t , t o p l a y g o l f f o r some time each

week f o r a p e r i o d o f f i v e weeks and t h i s sport he enjoyed though

h i s d i s a b i l i t i e s made i t d i f f i c u l t . A p p a r e n t l y he gave it

up only because an employment which he then had was te rmina ted .

On these occasions he did not wear his cal iper but would have

su€€ered some d i scomf i tu re a s a r e s u l t . I t would seem t h a t

he may t ake the game up a g a i n i n f u t u r e . He may be handicapped

however by what could occur in re la t lon to h is knee .

A s l g n i f i c a n t component i n t h i s v e r d i c t i s f o r

economic l o s s . Therefore , i t i s n e c e s s a r y t o n o t e His

H o n o u r ' s f i n d i n g s a s t o d e s t r u c t i o n o f ea rn ing capac i ty .

I

Thus t h e l e a r n e d t r i a l j u d g e s a i d :

I

" I t i s c l e a r on t h e e v i d e n c e t h e p l a i n t i f f

I

i s an odd l o t . The r e a l i s t i c p o s i t i o n i s

t h a t i n t h e A u s t r a l i a n C a p i t a l T e r r i t o r y

t h e r e i s no a v a i l a b l e e c o n o m i c o u t l e t f o r !

t h c p l a i n t i f f and t h a t he i s f o r p r a c t i c a l

p u r p o s e s t o t a l l y i n c a p a c i t a t e d . Whether

t h i s p o s i t i o n will change i f t he gene ra l t r end

o f t h e p r e s e n t economic r e c e s s i o n i s reversed

i n t h e t o a s s e s s f u t u r e i s doub t fu l . The Court has

damages a t p r e s e n t day va lues . I t

i s cons t r a ined by a u t h o r i t y n o t t o c o n s i d e r

f u t u r e i n E l a t i o n o r d e p r e s s i o n . I t i s

r e a s o n a b l e t o assume t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f would

bu t fo r h i s acc iden t have worked till about

the age of 65 yea r s . He 1 s present ly aged 20 s o

G

t h a t t h c C o u r t i n my opinion should

considcr the diminut ion of earning

c a p a c i t y f o r up t o 4 5 years. Using

a c t u a r i a l t a b l e s a s a guide only one

s e e s t h a t , a f t e r h e a v i l y d i s c o u n t i n g

h is present weekly ne t t earn ings f rom

$130 t o $ 1 0 0 allowing a per iod of 30

y e a r s i n s t e a d o f the probable 45 y e a r s ,

t h e c a p l t a l sum requ i r ed to be inves t ed

a t 6 % so a s t o r e t u r n t o t h e p l a i n t i f f

a sum of $ 1 0 0 p.w. would t o t a l i n excess

of $ S S , O O O . This example, i n my opin ion ,

works h e a v i l y a g a i n s t t h e p l a i n t i f f f o r

t h e v l c i s s i t u d e s o f l i f e b u t i s a guide

t o what f i g u r e i s r easonab le fo r

cons idera t ion under th i s head" .

However, even s i n c e t h e a c c i d e n t t h e p l a i n t i f f h a s h a d

employment. He worked wi th his bro ther - in- law Mr. Bray

t

(his g o l f i n g p a r t n e r ) a s a l a b o u r e r f i r s t o f a l l f o r a

I

day or two p e r week and then ful l t ime. He desc r ibes

t h i s work as appa ren t ly c l ean ing ou t t r enches a f t e r a

mechanical digger had made them. One of the

d i f f i c u l t i e s i n t h i s 'work was i n c a r r y i n g a r t i c l e s . He

had a t o go t o work. few days off because he experienced too much pa in

Overa l l he r ema ined i n t h l s employment .

€ o r 1 2 months and gave it up because apparent ly h is

employer wanted him every morning and he could not "make it"

every morning. A fur ther job which he could have had, as I

7

I I

u n d e r s t a n d i t , a f t e r t h e l a b o u r i n g l o b was w i t h a c l e a n i n g

i c o n t r a c t o r . Ile f a i l e d g e t t o h a t j o b b e c a u s e d i d h e n o t

I	have	a	d r i v e r ' s	l i c e n c e .	He	can	however	d r ive	a	motor
I

v e h i c l e a n d s t a t e d i n e v i d e n c e t h a t h e c o u l d g e t a l i c e n c e

I

I

a t any time; ( t h o u g h h e d o e s n o t p a r t i c u l a r $ y l i k e d r i v i n g )

he would do s o ii h e h a d t o d r i v e t o e a r n a l i v i n g .

A f u r t h e r j o b w h i c h h e c a r r i c d o u t f o r a p e r i o d o f

a p p r o x i m a t e l y f o u r w e e k s was as a l a b o u r e r w i t h a Company

c a l l e d E g l i t l s C o n s t r u c t i o n s . He d e s c r i b e s h i s e x p e r i e n c e

t h e r e a s f o l l o w s :

Q.	And	w h a t w e r e y o u r p a r t i c u l a r d u t i e s ?
A .	J u s t	t o h e l p t h e b u i l d e r s i t s e l f and

b u i l d s c a f f o l d i n g f o r t h e b r i c k l a y e r s .

Q - How d i d y o u g e t o n d o l n g t h a t ?

A . I was all r i g h t d o i n g t h e - working

w i t h t h e b u i l d e r s - b u t t h e s c a f f o l d i n g

was t o o h a r d

........ ........ ........ ........ .......

!

Q. J u s t b e i n g a s o r t o f handyman a s s i s t a n t ,

were you?

A . T h a t ' s r i g h t .

Q. 1Yhat was t h e p r o b l e m a b o u t t h e s c a f f o l d i n g ?

A . I t was t o o h a r d to c l imb I c o u l d n o t c l i m b

it p r o p e r l y w i t h my l e g .

........ ........ ........ ........ ........

Q.	Was	i t t u b u l a r	s c a f f o l d i n g ?
A .	Yes.

Q. And you were j u s t a s s e m b l i n g i t ?

A . Yes, I was o n l y j u s t a s s e m b l i n g t h i s .

........ ........ ........ ........ ........ .

8

MR. COLLINS: IIow d l d y o u come t o

f i n i s h up o n t h a t j o b ?

A . The boss w a s n ' t s a t i s f a c t o r y u t h t h e w o r k ; t a l k e d t o me a n d s a i d I

tha t he s c a f f o l d i n g wanted someone vho could do

a l o t f a s t e r t h a n 'I c o u l d

do i t . Then he s tood me down.

Q . Wel l , what was ho ld ing you up so f a r

as s p e e d was	conce rned on	t h e
s c a f f o l d l n g ?

A . Oh, c l i m b i n g t h e s c a f f o l d i n g was h a r d .

I h a d t o l e g a n d USC e v e r y t h m g e x c e p t my r i g h t

I was d r a g g l n g m y s e l f w i t h my

hands main ly .

I t i s t o b e n o t e d t h a t a p p a r e n t l y o n l y a p a r t i c u l a r

a s p e c t o f t h i s l o b was beyond h ~ m a n d t h a t b e c a u s e o t h e r s

c o u l d do i t f a s t e r t h a n h e .

Subscquen t ly he was employed f o r t h r e e n i g h t s as

an a c t i n g b a r m a n a t $ 1 5 p e r n i g h t .

He d e s c r i b e s t h i s o c c u p a t i o n t h u s :

Q . How d i d y o u g e t on w l t h t h a t ?

A . A b i t b i t s o r e w a l k i n g t l r i n g w i t h my l e g . I t was a

up and down t o t h e

b a r a l l t h e time.

Floreover it h a s b e e n s u g g e s t e d t h a t h e m i g h t resume

h i s s c h o o l i n g i n r e s p e c t o f w h i c h t h e f o l l o w i n g e v i d e n c e was

adduced f rom Dr. Farnbach :

Q . We u n d e r s t a n d , D o c t o r , t h a t t h e c l a i m a n t

i s now 2 0 ?

A . Yes.

I

9

Q. And t h a t h i s e d u c a t i o n - w i s e a t s c h o o l

- h e d i d n ' t g e t up t o w h a t i n my day

u s e d t o b e c e r t i f l c a t e , d o e s	c a l l e d	t h e	i n t e r m e d i a t e
t h a t r i n g a b e l l

w i t h y o u r d a y ?

A . Yes. I t h i n k h e w e n t t o t h i r d i o r m i n

h i g h s c h o o l .

Q. B u t t h e r e i s n o t h i n g u n u s u a l a b o u t h i s

m e n t a l c a p a c i t y , i s t h e r e ?

A . N o t t h a t I ' v e n o t i c e d , n o .

Q. And t h e r e w o u l d b e n o r e a s o n s why he

s h o u l d n ' t b e r e - t r a i n e d I n s u c h

d i r e c t i o n s a s l i t e r a l l y o r m e t a p h o r i c a l l y

g o i n g b a c k t o s c h o o l t o g e t some f u r t h e r

s c h o o l c e r t i f i c a t e s , c u l m i n a t l n g w i t h

t h e h i g h e r s c h o o l c e r t i i i c a t e ?

A .	I
w o u l d a c t i o n w o u l d b e t h i n k t h a t t h e o n l y c o u r s e of

t o go b a c k t o some s o r t

o i f o r m a l s c h o o l s i t u a t i o n a n d as you

s u g g e s t , g e t a s c h o o l c e r t i f i c a t e o r

h i g h e r s c h o o l c e r t i f i c a t e .

Q. I n d e e d i n t h i s c o m m u n i t y a r e t h e r e n o t

classes f o r t h i s k i n d o f e d u c a t i o n f o r

a d u l t s , r u n b y v a r i o u s o f f - s h o o t s o f t h e

Commonwealth government?

........ ........ ........ ........ ........

Q.	A d u l t	e d u c a t i o n	c l a s s e s	a n d	t h i n g s	l i k e
t h a t ?

A . T h e r c ' s a d u l t e d u c a t i o n c l a s s e s f o r

h i g h e r s c h o o l c e r t i f i c a t e a t t h e t e c h n i c a l

c o l l e g e h e r e .

c

10

And y o u c a n g o t o t h c t e c h n i c a l

Q.

c o l l e g e a n d s a y , I w a n t t o

m a t r l c u l a t e , wlll y o u p l e a s e t a k e

me	i n a n d	h e l p	me	a n d g e t	nie	a l o n g
t h e	r o a d ?

A . T h a t ' s r i g h t .

Q. And t h a t 1 s a v a i l a b l e c u r r e n t l y a t

t h e t e c h n i c a l c o l l e g e h e r e ?

A .	Yes .
Q.	And t h e r e ' s p e o p l e a v a i l i n g t h e m s e l v e s
o f t h i s nlethod o f r e - t r a i n i n g ?
A .	Yes.
Q.	H a v i n g r e g a r d t o h i s p h y s i c a l i n j u r i e s ,
1 s t h i s n o t w h a t h e o u g h t t o d o ?
A .	I would do i t i f I was i n h i s s i t u a t i o n .
Q.	He would b e d o i n g i t If, l o o k i n g a t
h i m s e l f i n w a r d l y , a s i t were, he was

s e n s i b l e ?

A . Yes, I t h i n k h e ........ ........ .......

HIS HONOUR: When y o u s a y o u g h t t o d o ,

Mr. N o r r l s , y o u mean o u g h t t o a t t e m p t i t 7

MR. NORRIS: Ought t o a t t e m p t i t , yes?

A .	I
t h i n k f o r him. i t ' s t h e m o s s e n s i b l e t c o u r s e
Q .	And t h e r e ' s n o t h l n g t h a t y o u ' v e seen a b o u t
t h e man t o s u g g e s t t o y o u t h a t l i k e
hundreds o f t h o u s a n d s of o t h e r l i t t l e
A u s t r a l i a n s , h e w o u l d n ' t b e a b l e t o g e t
t h rough t hese exams i f h e a p p l i e d h i s mind
t o i t - m i n d a n d d i l i g e n c e ?

I

A . He w o u l d h a v e t h e q u a l c h a n c e , I

would imagine .

Q . T h a t e v e r y b o d y h a s ?

A . Yes.

F u r t h e r r e f e r e n c e t o e x a m i n a t i o n i s made a t

page 52 b u t d o e s n o t a p p e a r t o d e t r a c t f r o m t h e e v i d e n c e

p r e v l o u s l y g l v e n b y t h i s w i t n e s s , who h a d t h e p a r t i c u l a r

q u a l l f i c a t l o n o f s p e c l a l i s i n g i n r e h a b i l l t a t i o n a n d w a s

t h e O f f i c e r - i n - C h a r g e o f	t h a t	s e r v i c e a t	t h e	IVoden	V a l l e y
H o s p i t a l .

T h e r e w a s r e f e r e n c e t o t h e r e s p o n d e n t ' s w o r k

e x p e r i e n c e s i n t h e m e d i c a l r e p o r t s t e n d e r e d . I n t h a t o f

Dr. M c G o n i g a l o f t h e 9 t h A u g u s t 1 9 7 6 he w r o t e a s f o l l o w s :

"Mr. A r m s t r o n g a t t e n d e d o n 2 8 t h J u n e ,

1 9 7 6 o n t h e a d v l c e o f h i s s o l i c i t o r s .

On this a p p o i n t e l e n t o c c a s i o n h e a r r l v e d l a t e f o r h i s

a n d r e p o r t e d .

1. R i g h t h i p a n d k n e e w e r e s t i f f s i n c e

s e e n by me t w o w e e k s e a r l l e r .

2 . He h a d p a l n i n t h e s e ~ o i n t s on w a l k i n g .

3 . He c a u g h t c o l d s a n d " f l u " a l l t h e t i m e .

4 . lie h a d b e e n p u t o f f w o r k b e c a u s e h e h a d

b e e n g e t t i n g up l a t e a n d r u n n i n g l a t e a t

work. He had some days o f f work because

h i s l i m b w a s p a i n f u l a n d h e h a d h a d t h e

" f l u " . . He h a d p r e v i o u s l y w o r k e d r e g u l a r l y

w i t h o n l y a l i t t l e time o f f b e c a u s e o f

b a c k p a i n € o r w h i c h h e h a d b e e n t r e a t e d b y

Dr. P e t e r G r a n t . He w a s n o t s u r e w h e n t h e

l a t t e r h a d b e e n .

1 2

He continued h i s work a s a casua l barman

b u t h a d n o t p l a y e d g o l i b e c a u s e	o f	l e g
s t i f f n e s s " .

The d o c t o r ' s o p i n i o n w a s , h a v i n g r e f e r r e d t o

t h e r e s p o n d e n t ' s m e d i c a l c o n d i t i o n s , a s f o l l o w s :

"Desp l t e t hese he had con t inued work ,

d r i v i n g a t r e n c h d i g g e r f o r o v e r a y e a r ,

a d d i t i o n a l p a r t t i m e w o r k a n d m o d e r a t e

s p o r t i n g a c t i v i t y , u n t i l a s r e c e n t l y as

J u n e , 1 9 7 6 . IVhen s e e n two weeks l a t e r no

c h a n g e i n h i s c o n d i t i o n was o b s e r v e d s u c h

a s m i g h t a l t e r h i s a b i l i t y	t o c o n t i n u e	t h e s e
a c t i v i t i e s " .

Dr. F a r n b a c h , I n h l s r c p o r t o f t h e 1 3 t h May 1 9 7 7 ,

w r o t e t h u s :

"I also d i s c u s s e d w i t h Mr. A r m s t r o n g t h e t y p e

o f employment he would be undertaking i n t h e

f u t u r e . You will b e a w a r e t h a t a t p r e s e n t

a n d o v e r	t h e	l a s t	e i g h t e e n m o n t h s h e h a s h a d
a number m a n a g e d	o f	l i g h t l a b o u r i n g j o b s w h i c h h e h a s

q u i t e well . He i n d i c a t e d t o me t h a t

he hoped p i c k i n g t o b e a b l e t o t r a v e l a r o u n d A u s t r a l i a

up work wherever I t was a v a i l a b l e . He

a l s o i n d i c a t e d t o me t h a t h e r e a l i s e d t h i s

wou ld no t be good f rom the po in t o f v i ew o f h i s

k n e e b u t h e f e l t i t was m o r e i m p o r t a n t t o move

a r o u n d A u s t r a l i a a n d see t h i n g s h e h a d a l w a y s

I

w a n t c d t o s e e w h i l e h e w a s s t i l l mobile enough

I

I

1 3

I t o do t h i s . He i s aware t ha t u l t ima te ly

he will have to undertake a sedentary

! job bu t he wishes to cope w i t h t h i s

problcm when the tune comes r a t h e r t h a n

now. I therefoTe d id no t p ress him t o

i

undertake any lengthy vocat ional assessment

h e r e a t p r e s e n t a l t h o u g h I d i d o f f e r t o s e e

him whenever he f e l t he would l i k e us t o

he lp him".

In t h e l i g h t o f a l l this evidence and remembering

t ha t t he l ea rned t r i a l j udge a s ses sed the r e sponden t a s a

person of "courage, s toicism and tenaci ty" , i t does seem t h a t

i t was no t a reasonable conclus ion tha t the respondent was,

f o r p r a c t i c a l p u r p o s e s , t o t a l l y i n c a p a c i t a t e d . If t h e

respondent has been awarded a sum f o r d e s t r u c t i o n o f e a r n i n g

capac i ty on t h a t b a s i s , i t f o l l o w s t h a t t h i s p a r t o f t h e

award has been I t seems overstated.

a l s o t h a t a s a pre l iminary to equipping

h i m s e l f t o b u i l d i n t o t h e v e r d i c t a sum f o r t h i s l o s s o f

ea rn ing capac i ty the l ea rned t r i a l j udgc en te r t a ined the

new tha t t he "p resen t week ly ne t t ea rn ings" o f t he r e sponden t

were $ 1 3 0 . F o r the reasons which have been advanced in

argument and having regard t o the evidence of Mr. Brackenridge

and Mr. F a r d e l l i t would seem t h a t t h e t r i a l j u d g e h a s a c t e d

on a gcnerous viev o r ca l cu la t ion o f t he r e sponden t ' s ea rn ing

p o t e n t i a l and even then perhaps overstated i t .

The ca lcu la t ion could be as fol lows : !

!

c

l 14

:

!

Wage Tax $135.00 $ 2 7 . 0 0

Han Leading 5 . 80 Tax 1 . 0 0

Overt lme $ 1 4 0 . 0 0 pw 2 . 6 0

! 52

Old	employee f o o t b a l l e r	o r
(pw) 7 .50 -

(approximate average) $150.90 - Tax $ 2 8 . 0 0 = $122.90

T h i s c a l c u l a t i o n , i f i t were what gave His Honour

t h e f i g u r e o f and i t assumes $ 1 2 2 d i d n o t a l l o w f o r t ax o n t h e l a s t $ 1 0 . 1 0 ;

the work week by week i s n o t i n t e r r u p t e d b y

a b s e n c e f o r a n y r e a s o n - even f o r f o o t b a l l i n j u r y .

To i n c r e a s e $ 1 2 2 t o $ 1 3 0 b y t h e a d d i t i o n o f a v e r a g e

p a y m e n t s f o r f o o t b a l l e a r n i n g s , t h e f i n d i n g m u s t f i r s t

t r a n s l a t e t h e r e s p o n d e n t t o f i r s t - g r a d e ( w h e r e h c s t a y s ) a n d

t h e n a d o p t a s r e a s o n a b l e t h a t h e p l a y s 1 8 m a t c h e s per s e a s o n

( i . e . 4 more games a f t e r t h e i n i t i a l two rounds ) . .at .an

a v e r a g e o f $26 p e r game. Such a s i t u a t i o n i s p o s s i b l e b u t o n e

f e e l s t h a t i t errs o n t h e h i g h s i d e . I t i s f a i r t o n o t e a f t e r

! f o o t b a l l d a y s w e r e o v e r , t h e " o l d e m p l o y e e " p a y m e n t s c o u l d b e

a v a i l a b l e .

An a n a l y s i s now o f t h e c o m p o n e n t s o f t h e v e r d i c t

w111 e n a b l e o n e t h e b e t t e r t o u n d e r s t a n d t h e p r o p o s i t i o n s

advanced by t h e a p p e l l a n t .

The sum a w a r d e d a p p e a r s t o b e made up a s f o l l o w s :

O u t - o f - p o c k e t e x p e n s e s $ 5 , 0 3 1 . 9 0

Pa id 4 ,167 .40

864.50	due	Balance
Loss o f w a g e s ( a c c i d e n t t o h e a r i n g ) 7 , 5 0 0 . 0 0
P a i n s u f f e r i n g ! d i m i n u t i o n o f

1 5 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 c a p a c i t y e a r n i n g

$158,364.50

.

1 5

I t is t o b e n o t e d t h a t t h e v e r d i c t , h a v i n g

r e g a r d t o w h a t a l r e a d y i s p a i d i s e q u i v a l e n t t o $ 1 6 2 , 5 3 1 . 9 0 .

I t i s desirable t o a t t e m p t some f u r t h e r d i s s e c t i o n .

The sum o f $150 ,000 .00 i s made up l a r g e l y o f a n a m o u n t f o r

t h e d e s t r u c t i o n o f e a r n l n g c a p a c i t y ; a n d f r o m w h a t w a s s a i d

by Ilis Honour ( a t p . 1 1 1 ) i t would appear he may have a l lowed

a b o u t $ 9 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 f o r t h i s , l e a v i n g a p p r o x i m a t e l y $ 6 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0

f o r p a i n e t c . a n d d i s f i g u r e m e n t .

I n v e s t e d a t 1 0 % - t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h i s c o u l d b e

a p e r m i s s i b l e o r u s e f u l m e t h o d o f check ing (see Sharman v Evans

1 3 A . L . R . 5 7 a t 77) - $ 9 0 , 0 0 0 would p rovide a g r o s s i n c o m e o f

s o m e t h i n g i n e x c e s s o f $ 1 7 0 p . w . - w i t h c a p i t a l i n t a c t . The

r e s p o n d e n t d o e s n o t n e e d t o p r o v i d e , o n t h e e v i d e n c e , f o r

r e c u r r e n t p e r i o d i c m e d i c a l e x p e n s e s , s o h e may b e a b l e t o

s e e k a h i g h e r r e t u r n o n a sum f o r w h i c h i n t e r e s t i s p a y a b l e

q u a r t e r l y .

Moreover i t d o e s a p p e a r t h a t His Honour may have

been mis l ed by a d o c u m e n t s a i d t o h a v e b e e n i n c u r r e n t u s a g e

which s e t s o u t c e r t a i n s o - c a l l e d a c t u a r i a l c a l c u l a t i o n s ,

i n c l u d i n g t h a t o f t h e c a p i t a l sum r e q u i r e d t o p r o d u c e $ 1 0 0

p e r week f o r 40 y e a r s w i t h a n i n v e s t m e n t r a t e o f 6 % . We a r e

t o l d t h a t h i s d o c u m e n t s h o w s a g a i n s t h i s r e c k o n i n g a sum of :

$ 8 8 , 0 0 0 , w h e r e a s t h e c o r r e c t f i g u r e i s $80,804 ( 3 0 A . L . J . 243);

I

and His Honour's	comment	a t p.111	seems	t o b e b a s e d o n s u c h	a
document.

I'!ith t h e s e o b s e r v a t i o n s i n mind it i s n e c e s s a r y t o

remember t h a t I t i s u n d e s i r a b l e f o r a n a p p e l l a t e C o u r t t o h a v e

t o u n d e r t a k e t o d l f f e r f r o m f i n d i n g s of' f ac t s o f a j u d g e a t

f i r s t i n s t a n c e who h a d t h a t w e l l known a d v a n t a g e o f s e e i n g a n d

e v a l u a t i n g t h e w i t n e s s e s a n d t h e i r e v i d e n c e . H o w e v e r o n c e t h e

f a c t s were e s t a b l i s h e d f r o m w h i c h t h e j u d g e h a s d r a w n a n

i n fe rence t h e n p e r h a p s a n a p p e l l a t e C o u r t may b e v e r y

n e a r l y i n a s g o o d a p o s i t i o n as he was t o u n d e r t a k e t h e

p r o c e s s o f e v a l u a t i o n . S e e Da Cos ta v Cockburn Salvage

6 T r a d i n g P t y . L t d . ( 1 9 7 0 ) 1 2 4 C . L . R . 1 9 2 , wpere a u t h o r i t i e s

a r e c o l l e c t e d .

I n t h i s A p p e a l t h e C o u r t h a s n o t b e e n a s k e d t o

o v e r t u r n a n y f i n d i n g s o f f a c t made b y t h e l e a r n e d t r i a l

judge and one p roceeds upon t h e b a s i s t h a t h i s f i n d i n g s aTe

accep ted ; t hough wha t His H o n o u r d e c i d e d f r o m t h o s e f a c t s

i s n o t w i t h r e s p e c t s o e a s y o f a c c e p t a n c e .

The f i r s t comment a t t r a c t e d b y t h e s i z e o f t h e

v e r d i c t i s t h a t i t 1 s w i t h i n a r a n g e of awards which are

u s u a l l y f o u n d a s h a v i n g b e e n made f o r t h e p a r a p l e g i c a n d

y c t t h c r e s p o n d e n t i s i m m e a s u r a b l y b e t t e r o f f t h a n s u c h a

p e r s o n .

The sum o f $ 6 0 , 0 0 0 , i f t h a t w e r e t h e a p p r o x i m a t e

a l l o w a n c e f o r p a i n a n d s u f f e r i n g e t c . r e p r e s e n t s a f i g u r e

un reasonab ly	beyond	wha t ,	i n	my	v iew,	shou ld	have	been
a v a i l a b l e .

F u r t h e r i t w o u l d a p p e a r t h a t i n d e c i d i n g t h a t

" f o r p r a c t i c a l p u r p o s e s " t h e r e s p o n d e n t was t o t a l l y

I

i n c a p a c i t a t e d , t h e r e h a s b e e n d i s r e g a r d e d t h e u n c o n t r a d i c t e d

e v i d e n c e i n t h e case a s t o h i s w o r k h i s t o r y a n d h i s p o t e n t i a l

f o r s e l f i m p r o v e m e n t . I f t h e sum o f a b o u t $ 9 0 , 0 0 0 was awarded

f o r r e d u c t i o n oi e a r n i n g c a p a c i t y - as s o a p p e a r s - it i s a l s o

i n my v i e w a n u n r e a s o n a b l e o v e r p r o v i s i o n .

I t i s n o t i n t e n d e d t o p o s i t i v e l y a s s e r t h e r e t h a t a

s p e c l f i c sum c a n b e p o s l t i v e l y d e t e r m i n e d a s h a v i n g b e e n t h e

amount awarded by the l earned t r i a l j u d g e f o r a p a r t i c u l a r h e a d

I

I _ _ I

I 17

of damage. But so f a r as one can glean what was awarded

f o r t h e two h e a d i n g s l a s t l y m e n t i o n e d , t h e a m o u n t s m e n t i o n e d ,

i n my v i e w c o n s t i t u t e e r r o n e o u s e s t i m a t e s f o r t h o s e h e a d i n g s ;

a n d t h e v e r d i c t m u s t a l s o b e s o d e s c r i b e d a n d m u s t b e s e t

a s i d e .

I t 1 s n e c e s s a r y now t o d e c i d e w h a t ' i s the p r o p e r

amount t o h e a w a r d e d t o t h e r e s p o n d e n t . I n a r r i v i n g a t t h a t

f i g u r e I am n o t as p e s s i m i s t i c a b o u t t h e r e s p o n d e n t ' s e a r n i n g

c a p a c i t y as was t h e t r i a l J u d g e ; n o r w o u l d I h a v e r e g a r d e d

h i s p o t e n t i a l e a r n i n g c a p a c i t y as o p t l m i s t i c a l l y as h e d i d .

I h a v e h a d t h e a d v a n t a g e o f r e a d i n g t h e j u d g m e n t

o f t h e l e a r n e d p r e s i d i n g j u d g e . T h o u g h I d o n o t a g r e e exac t ly

w i t h t h e d e s t r u c t i o n o r a m o u n t s h

e i m p a i r m e n t o f e a r n i n g c a p a c i t y a n d p a i n , w o u l d p r o p o s e f o r t h e h e a d i n g s o f

s u f f e r i n g a n d l o s s o f a m e n i t i e s of l i f e , my own f i g u r e s a n d

what I r e g a r d as a n a p p r o p r i a t e v e r d i c t d o n o t d i f f e r so

markedly t ha t I wlsh t o d i f f e r f r o m h i s a s s e s s m e n t .

A c c o r d l n g l y , I a g r e e w i t h t h e t o t a l sum a t which

h e a r r l v e s a n d t h e o r d e r h e p r o p o s e s .

I c e r t l f y that thls and t h e

prcracxag p q e s are a t r u e copy o f the

Rea; . IS f o r Judzment herem of h l s Honour