DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Boskovic v Boskovic & Anor [2007] QDC 186
PARTIES:
JADRANKA BOSKOVIC
Plaintiff
V
LOZAN BOSKOVIC
First Defendant
and
ALLIANZ AUSTRALIA INSURANCE LIMITED
Second Defendant
FILE NO/S:
BD1501/2006
DIVISION:
Civil
PROCEEDING:
Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
24 August 2007
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
19, 20, 21 February, 15 May 2007
JUDGE:
Rafter SC DCJ
ORDER:
Judgment that the second defendant pay the plaintiff
$84,203.76
CATCHWORDS:
DAMAGES – MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – LOSS OF EARNINGS AND EARNING CAPACITY – PAIN AND SUFFERING – LOSS OF AMENITIES – the plaintiff’s credit was in issue at trial – whether the plaintiff’s injuries were as debilitating as she claimed – assessment of damages for personal injuries – physical and psychiatric injuries – dominant injury
Civil Liability Act (Qld), 2003, s55, s59, s61(1)(a), s61(1)(c), 62(b)
Civil Liability Regulation (Qld), 2003
Motor Accident Insurance Act (Qld), 1994, s53Ballesteros v Chidlow & Anor [2005] QSC 280, considered
Ballesteros v Chidlow & Anor [2006] QCA 323, applied
CSR Ltd v Eddy (2005) 226 CLR 1, applied
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298, considered
Kriz v King & Anor [2006] 351, appliedCOUNSEL:
GR Mullins for the plaintiff
PL Feely for the defendants
SOLICITORS:
Gouldson Legal for the plaintiff
McInnes Wilson for the defendants
Introduction
The plaintiff was born in the former Yugoslavia on 16 November 1971. She is presently 35 years of age. The plaintiff is married to the first defendant, Lozan Boskovic. They have three children. Jovana was born on 5 December 1995 and is presently 11 years of age. Tamara was born on 3 January 1997 and is presently 10 years old. Lazar was born on 8 October 2004 and is presently 2 years of age.
The plaintiff claims damages for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle collision on 24 May 2003. Liability is admitted. I am required to assess the quantum of the plaintiff’s damages.
On 24 May 2003 the plaintiff and her husband were shopping at the Indooroopilly Shoppingtown. Mr Boskovic was driving the vehicle when they were returning home. He was attempting to overtake another vehicle when that vehicle changed lanes and a collision resulted[1]. The accident was reasonably serious causing significant damage to the motor vehicle[2].
[1]T43 line 30
[2]See photographs Exhibit 1 Pt C pp 25 to 28
The plaintiff suffered injuries to her neck, lower back, left hand and chest. She also suffered post-traumatic stress disorder. The plaintiff also claims to have suffered a major depressive disorder and chronic pain due to physical and psychological factors. She claims that these injuries have precluded her from returning to work and have significantly interfered with her ability to care for herself and her family.
The second defendant accepts that the plaintiff suffered soft tissue injuries to her neck and back and seat belt injuries to her chest that would have caused pain and difficulties for…
Continue reading Boskovic v. Boskovic & Anor
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Boskovic v Boskovic [2007] QDC 186
- Case
- [2007] QDC 186
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were the measure and remoteness of damages in actions for tort, specifically in the context of personal injuries. The court was required to determine the appropriate amount of damages to be awarded to the plaintiff for her physical and psychiatric injuries, and to assess the credibility of the plaintiff's claims regarding the extent of her injuries. The court also needed to consider whether the plaintiff's credit was a relevant factor in determining the damages.
The court found that the plaintiff's injuries were less debilitating than she claimed, and that her credit was a relevant factor in assessing the damages. The court awarded the plaintiff $84,203.76 in damages, taking into account the plaintiff's subjective perceptions of her injuries and the objective evidence presented. The court concluded that the plaintiff's injuries were not as severe as she had claimed, and that the award of damages reflected the true extent of her injuries and the impact on her life. The court also found that the plaintiff's credit was a relevant factor in determining the amount of damages to be awarded.
The final orders of the court were that the second defendant pay the plaintiff $84,203.76 in damages for her personal injuries sustained in the motor vehicle accident. The court also found that the plaintiff's credit was a relevant factor in assessing the damages, and that the award reflected the true extent of her injuries and the impact on her life.
Orders
Orders of the court
Judgment that the second defendant pay the plaintiff
$84,203.76
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.