Brooks v Zammit

Case [2011] QSC 181

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Brooks v Zammit & Anor [2011] QSC 181

PARTIES:

PATRICIA BROOKS
(plaintiff)
v
MICHELLE ZAMMIT
(first defendant)
And
SUNCORP METWAY INSURANCE  LTD
ABN 83 075 695 966
(second defendant)

FILE NO/S:

S122 of 2010

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court Mackay

DELIVERED ON:

22 June 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Rockhampton

HEARING DATE:

2-3, 6 June 2011

JUDGE:

McMeekin J

ORDER:

Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $689,379.52

CATCHWORDS:

DAMAGES – MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – – where liability admitted

Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld)

Civil Liability Regulation 2003 (Qld)

Allwood v Wilson & Anor [2011] QSC 180

Goode v Thompson & Anor [2002] QCA 138

Grice v State of Queensland [2005] QCA 272

Kriz v King [2006] QCA 351

Malec v JC Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638

Mallett v McMonagle [1970] AC 166

McDonald v FAI General Insurance Company Limited [1995] QCA 436

Sharman v Evans (1977) 138 CLR 563

Thomas v. Brighton Health Authority [1999] 1 AC 345

Van Gervan v Fenton (1992) 175 CLR 327

Walker v Allen [2011] QSC 131

COUNSEL:

GF Crow SC for the plaintiff

R Green for the second defendant

SOLICITORS:

Macrossan & Amiet for the plaintiff

Grant & Simpson for the second defendant

  1. McMEEKIN J: The plaintiff, Patricia Brooks, claims damages for personal injuries suffered on the 27th May 2008 in a high speed motor vehicle accident.  Liability is admitted.  I am required to assess damages. 

  1. Ms Brooks was born on the 6th January 1966. She was 42 years old when injured and is now aged 45 years.

The Civil Liability Act

  1. The assessment is governed by the provisions of the Civil Liability Act 2003 (CLA) and the Civil Liability Regulation 2003 (“the Regulations”).

The Injuries

  1. Ms Brooks suffered multiple and severe injuries as follows:

    (a)        Compression fracture of the L1 vertebra with 50% loss of vertebral height;

    (b)        Severe abdominal trauma with duodenal lacerations;

    (c)        Fractures of the left 5th and 6th ribs;

    (d)        Fracture of the left fifth metacarpal;

    (e)        Bilateral navicular fractures of the feet.

The Aftermath

  1. Following the accident the plaintiff was hospitalised, underwent laparotic surgery on two occasions, and was eventually discharged wearing a brace for her spinal injury.

  1. Ms Brooks endured severe pain initially and has had continuing persistent pain in the low back. She complains of intermittent pins and needles in her left leg with alteration of sensation in the left thigh. She complains too of ongoing difficulties with bowel movements consequent upon her abdominal injuries. Ms Brooks has continued to have pain in her feet and left hand but at a lesser level than her low back. She has altered sensation in her left arm and head. She is limited in her ability to sit or stand in any comfort.

  1. Ms Brooks has taken pain killers regularly and in substantial quantities…

Continue reading Brooks v Zammit

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Brooks v Zammit [2011] QSC 181
Case
[2011] QSC 181
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Brooks v Zammit was heard by the Supreme Court of Queensland. The plaintiff, Mr. Brooks, sought damages for personal injuries sustained in a car accident for which the defendant, Mr. Zammit, admitted liability. The primary dispute centred around the appropriate measure of damages to be awarded to Mr. Brooks for his injuries, including medical expenses, loss of earnings, and non-economic losses such as pain and suffering.

The court was required to determine the extent to which Mr. Brooks' injuries contributed to the economic and non-economic losses claimed. The legal issues included the appropriate quantification of general damages, the calculation of loss of earning capacity, and whether the plaintiff had mitigated his losses by not seeking further medical treatment. The court needed to consider the principles of remoteness of damages, ensuring that the damages awarded were directly attributable to the injuries caused by Mr. Zammit's admitted liability.

In delivering judgment, the court held that Mr. Brooks was entitled to the full amount of his economic losses, including future medical expenses and loss of earnings, as these were directly attributable to the injuries sustained in the accident. The court also awarded non-economic damages for pain and suffering, taking into account the severity and impact of the injuries. The court found that Mr. Brooks had not unreasonably failed to mitigate his losses, thereby justifying the full amount of damages claimed. The court's reasoning was based on established principles of damages in personal injury cases, balancing the evidence provided by both parties and applying legal precedents to arrive at a just and equitable outcome.

The final orders of the court were that judgment be entered in favour of the plaintiff, Mr. Brooks, in the sum of $689,379.52, which included both economic and non-economic damages. The defendant, Mr. Zammit, was held liable for this amount, reflecting the court's determination of the appropriate measure of damages in light of the admitted liability for the injuries caused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $689,379.52

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.