Boots v Preston

CITATION:	BOOTS v PRESTON [2007] NSWDC 255
HEARING DATE(S):	30-31.10.07
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE:	2 November 2007
JURISDICTION:	Civil
JUDGMENT OF:	Sidis DCJ
DECISION:	1 Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $790,596.82, comprising the sum of $1,054,129.10 from which is deducted twenty-five per cent on account of contributory negligence. 2 The defendant is to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings. 3 The exhibits will be retained for twenty-eight days.
CATCHWORDS:	Motor vehicle accident - Significant injury to non-dominant left arm - Domestic care needs - Income loss
CASES CITED:	Teuma & anor v C P & P K Judd Pty Ltd [2007] NSWCA 166 Van Gervin v Fenton (1992) 175 CLR 327
PARTIES:	Kristen Louise BOOTS v Megan PRESTON
FILE NUMBER(S):	Wagga Wagga 85/04
COUNSEL:	Plaintiff - M Cranitch SC - M B Inglis Defendant - D Ronzani
SOLICITORS:	Plaintiff - Commins Hendricks Defendant - Curwoods Lawyers

JUDGMENT

1 Kristen Louise Boots did not secure her school certificate before leaving Leeton High School at the end of year 10 in 2002. Her ambition was to serve as a military police officer in the RAAF. To pursue this ambition she needed her school certificate.

2 In early 2003 she enrolled at the local TAFE in order to repeat year 10 and obtain this qualification. She was to commence in February 2003.

3 She had enjoyed sports, including netball, touch football, basketball and rugby union and she intended to continue to play them. She was right hand dominant.

4 She lived with her parents and two sisters, one older and one younger, at Leeton. Both parents worked and therefore housework for the family was shared.

5 Nine days after her sixteenth birthday, on 8 February 2003, she was seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident.

6 A career in the military police is no longer available to her and she can no longer participate in sporting activities. She suffers from ongoing pain and disability as a result of her injuries.

7 Breach of the duty of care is admitted by the defendant. The parties agreed there was contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff to the extent of twenty five per cent.

8 It was also agreed that the whole person impairment of the plaintiff as a result of her injuries exceeded ten per cent.

9 The issues therefore were related to compensation, based upon the extent of her ongoing disability and thus the assessment of non-economic loss, past and future loss of income earning capacity, her needs for out of pocket expenses and for domestic care.

10 The plaintiff’s injuries were described by Dr van der Rijt in his report of 25 July as follows:

1. Multiple abrasions consistent with shattered glass impact.
2. A compound penetrating wound to the elbow and proximal ulna.
3. Fractured mid shaft left humerus with a dense radial nerve palsy.
4. An extremely comminuted fracture of the distal left humerus with marked comminution of the elbow articular surface epicondylar,…