Blight & Webster v Ruzicic

[2006] NSWLC 32

Local Court of New South Wales

CITATION:	Blight & Webster v Ruzicic [2006] NSWLC 32
JURISDICTION:	Civil
PARTIES:	Howard Blight Judith Blight Mark Webster Natasha Webster Roy Ruzicic
FILE NUMBER:	1144/06
PLACE OF HEARING:	Downing Centre Local Court
DATE OF DECISION:	09/19/2006
MAGISTRATE:	Magistrate H Dillon
CATCHWORDS:	Damages - Whether gratuitous care of plaintiff's injured stud farm animals is a head of damage - Whether gratuitous care of injured stud farm animals may be characterised as "tending to investments" - Damages - Diminution of value of injured stud animals - Whether expert valuer's opinion sufficiently reliable to prove diminished value of injured horses
LEGISLATION CITED:
CASES CITED:	Athanasopoulos v Moseley [2001] NSWCA 266 Donnelly v Joyce [1974] QB 454 Griffiths v Kerkemeyer (1977) 139 CLR 161 Grincelis v House (2001) 201 CLR 321 Kars v Kars (1996) 187 CLR 354 Van Gervan v Fenton (1992) 175 CLR 327
REPRESENTATION:	Ms M J Avenell - Counsel Norman Waterhouse - Solicitors Ms J Sheller - Counsel William Roberts - Solicitor
ORDERS:	Verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $25,258.47. Interest to be calculated by the Registrar from 22 April 2005. In relation to costs I order that costs be as agreed or as assessed. Parties to have liberty to apply on that question

1. The plaintiffs, all members of an extended family, are the owners of a number of thoroughbred horses that, on 31 August this year, I found had been injured as a result of being chased or attacked by one or more of the defendant’s American pit bull terriers. I gave my reasons on that day for finding the defendant liable.

2. The more difficult questions, in some respects, are those to do with quantum.

3. There is no contest from the defendant that the costs of treatment of the horses is a sum of $6825.97 and that the claim is reasonable in that respect.

4. The defendant, however, disputes the claims for diminution in the value of the horses and for time spent by the plaintiffs themselves caring for the animals.

5. Certain sums are claimed for extra time spent by employees. As I understand it, the defendant does not contest the reasonableness of those amounts. On the other hand, he does dispute the claim for the value of gratuitous care provided by Howard Blight and his daughter Natasha Webster to the horses.

6. The issues therefore are whether there is reasonable or reliable evidence of diminution in the value of two of the three injured horses and whether the gratuitous care provided by Mr Blight and Mrs Webster to the horses is a compensable loss.

Gratuitous care of the horses

7. After the horses were injured, it was not only necessary to have them treated by a veterinarian but for someone to dress and bandage their wounds. The plaintiffs testified that they had spent many hours tending to the injured fillies. By referring to the stud diary, Mr Blight was able to say that he had spent…