Barrett v Richardson - [2017] QDC 259

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Barrett v Richardson & Anor [2017] QDC 259

PARTIES:

BESSIE ANNE BARRETT

(plaintiff)

v

DWAYNE BRIAN RICHARDSON

(first defendant)

NOMINAL DEFENDANT

(ABN 65 207 831 553)

(second defendant)

FILE NO/S:

1461/16

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

23 October 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

4,5 October 2017

JUDGE:

Ryrie DCJ

ORDER:

Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $10,635.66.

CATCHWORDS:

DAMAGES – MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – GENERAL PRINCIPLES - where liability admitted – where plaintiff was unemployed prior to the accident – whether plaintiff would have been able to obtain and maintain employment – whether plaintiff satisfies the requirement for gratuitous assistance

Civil Liability Act 2003 (QLD)

Civil Liability Regulation 2003 (QLD)

AAI Limited & Anor v Marinkovic (2017) QCA 54

Allianz Australia Limited v McCarthy (2012) QCA 312

Boon v Summs of Qld Pty Ltd t/a Big Bills Bobcats (2015) QSC 162

Boon v Summs of Qld Pty Ltd (2016) QCA 38

Hooper v King (2011) QSC 324

Graham v Baker (1961) 106 CLR 340

Malec v JC Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) CLR 638

Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission (1995) 182 CLR 1

Shaw v Menzies (2011) QCA 197

COUNSEL:

Mr MJ Smith for the Plaintiff

Mr GC O’Driscoll for the second Defendant

SOLICITORS:

CMC Lawyers for the Plaintiff

Jensen McConaghy Lawyers for the second Defendant

Introduction

Ms Barrett, the plaintiff in this matter, claims damages for personal injuries and consequential loss suffered by her as a result of a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 20 May 2014. Ms Barrett was travelling as a passenger in the vehicle at the relevant time. Liability being admitted, quantum with respect to damages, was the only issue at trial.

It is accepted that the plaintiff sustained certain physical injuries as a result of that accident, however the defendants say that any assessment of damages made by this court ought to be a modest one and limited to general damages and some past special damages only. The plaintiff on the other hand seeks a variety of damages as evident from the Statement of Claim which was maintained at trial.

As a consequence of constructive input by both counsel, the trial was considerably shortened. An agreement was reached between the parties that in respect of any damages assessed by the court, a reduction of 35% should be applied to take into account the plaintiff’s own contributory negligence related to the subject accident.

Evidence at Trial
The plaintiff

The plaintiff was born on 19 October 1974. She was 39 years of age at the point of the accident and is currently 43 years old. As a result of the accident, the plaintiff confirmed that she had suffered four broken ribs and a collarbone on her left side, a black eye and bruising on the top of her left forehead and cheek. Immediately after the accident, she went…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Barrett v Richardson

Details

AGLC: Barrett v Richardson [2017] QDC 259
Case: [2017] QDC 259
Decision Date: 23 October 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Barrett v Richardson involved a plaintiff, Barrett, who was injured in a car accident caused by the defendant, Richardson. The dispute was centred on the quantum of damages Barrett was entitled to, particularly in light of his pre-accident employment status. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issues revolved around the appropriate measure of damages for personal injury and the remoteness of such damages. A critical issue was whether Barrett would have been able to obtain and maintain employment if not for the accident, given that he was unemployed at the time of the incident. Additionally, the court had to determine if Barrett satisfied the requirement for gratuitous assistance, which could impact the calculation of damages.

The court examined the principles of causation and foreseeability in assessing damages. It noted that while Barrett was unemployed, this did not preclude him from recovering damages. The court found that it was reasonably foreseeable that the accident would prevent Barrett from seeking employment, given his age and the nature of his injuries. The court also concluded that Barrett satisfied the requirement for gratuitous assistance, as there was evidence he would have been able to maintain employment if not for the accident. Based on these findings, the court awarded Barrett damages of $10,635.66.

The final orders of the court were that judgment be entered in favour of Barrett, awarding him the sum of $10,635.66 in damages.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $10,635.66.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Barrett v Richardson & Anor [2017] QDC 259
PARTIES:	BESSIE ANNE BARRETT (plaintiff) v DWAYNE BRIAN RICHARDSON (first defendant) NOMINAL DEFENDANT (ABN 65 207 831 553) (second defendant)
FILE NO/S:	1461/16
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	23 October 2017
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	4,5 October 2017
JUDGE:	Ryrie DCJ
ORDER:	Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $10,635.66.
CATCHWORDS:	DAMAGES – MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – GENERAL PRINCIPLES - where liability admitted – where plaintiff was unemployed prior to the accident – whether plaintiff would have been able to obtain and maintain employment – whether plaintiff satisfies the requirement for gratuitous assistance Civil Liability Act 2003 (QLD) Civil Liability Regulation 2003 (QLD) AAI Limited & Anor v Marinkovic (2017) QCA 54 Allianz Australia Limited v McCarthy (2012) QCA 312 Boon v Summs of Qld Pty Ltd t/a Big Bills Bobcats (2015) QSC 162 Boon v Summs of Qld Pty Ltd (2016) QCA 38 Hooper v King (2011) QSC 324 Graham v Baker (1961) 106 CLR 340 Malec v JC Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) CLR 638 Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission (1995) 182 CLR 1 Shaw v Menzies (2011) QCA 197
COUNSEL:	Mr MJ Smith for the Plaintiff Mr GC O’Driscoll for the second Defendant
SOLICITORS:	CMC Lawyers for the Plaintiff Jensen McConaghy Lawyers for the second Defendant