Basa v Cartwright

[2015] QDC 27

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Basa v Cartwright & Anor [2015] QDC 27

PARTIES:

MILUSKA BASA

(plaintiff)

v

MARY DIANNE CARTWRIGHT (DECEASED)

(first defendant)

AND

RACQ INSURANCE LIMITED ACN 009 704 152

(second defendant)

FILE NO/S:

D2411/13

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

20 February 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

4 & 5 February 2015

JUDGE:

Samios DCJ

ORDER:

1.          JUDGMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFF AGAINST THE SECOND DEFENDANT FOR THE SUM OF $193,867.67

CATCHWORDS:

DAMAGES – ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES – GENERAL AND SPECIAL DAMAGES – GRIFFITHS V. KERKEMEYER – INTEREST – LOSS OF AMENITIES – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURY – QUANTUM – where the plaintiff commenced an action against the defendants for damages as a result of a motor vehicle accident – where the second defendant admitted liability for the motor vehicle accident – where the only issue at trial was quantum of damages – whether the plaintiff is entitled to the quantum of damages sought in the plaintiff’s claim and statement of claim

Legislation

Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) s 55 and s 59

Civil Liability Regulation 2014 (Qld) s 4 of sch 3, item 93 of sch 4

Cases

Ballesteros v Chidlow [2006] QCA 323, [41]

Griffiths v Kerkemeyer (1977) 139 CLR 161

Land v Dhaliwal & Anor [2012] QSC 360, [98] and [99]

Shaw v Menzies & Anor [2011] QCA 197, [53]

Reitano v Shearer & Anor [2014] QCA 336, [25]

COUNSEL:

Mr J Kimmins for the plaintiff

Mr K Howe for the defendants

SOLICITORS:

Shine Lawyers for the plaintiff

Quinlan Miller & Treston for the defendants

1. The plaintiff was born on 26 December 1959.  She claims against the defendants damages for personal injuries and consequential loss as a result of the negligence of the first defendant.

1. Liability is not in issue.  Quantum of damages is in issue.

1. On 7 September 2011 the plaintiff was driving her car along Warrigal Road in Eight Mile Plains and turned left into Warrigal Square shopping centre.

1. The plaintiff pulled into a car parking space in the shopping centre, stopped, placed the transmission in park, applied the hand brake, and then turned off the engine.

1. The plaintiff remained in the driver’s seat whilst reaching for her phone and then called her mother.

1. The first defendant was driving a motor vehicle and commenced a forward motioned right turn into the parking space adjacent to the plaintiff and in doing so collided with the driver’s side rear bumper, shunting the plaintiff’s vehicle forward, and then, continued into the space side swiping down the rear driver’s side panel of the plaintiff’s vehicle.

1. The plaintiff claims as a consequence of the collision she suffered soft tissue injuries of the cervical spine, thoracic spine and lumbar spine.  She also claims she suffered rib fractures and facet joint trauma.  She claims she also suffered sleeping difficulties and headaches.

1. When the plaintiff gave evidence she described the severity of the collision as “powerful”.  She said…