Burge v Patterson - [2015] TASSC 62

[2015] TASSC 62

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Burge v Patterson [2015] TASSC 62

PARTIES:  BURGE, Darren Maxwell
  v
  PATTERSON, Fiona Mei Han

FILE NO:  104/2011
DELIVERED ON:  11 December 2015
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATES:  19, 20, 23 – 26 February, 3 March 2015
JUDGMENT OF:  Pearce J

CATCHWORDS:

Damages – Particular awards of general damages – Tasmania – Back pain and adjustment disorder – Electrician aged 32 at accident, 39 at trial – General damages of $60,000 for pain and suffering and loss of amenities.

Aust Dig Damages [61]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Plaintiff:  B R McTaggart SC, A Gaggin
             Defendant:  P Jackson SC, R Webster
Solicitors:
             Plaintiff:  Murdoch Clarke
             Defendant:  M+K dobson mitchell allport lawyers

Judgment Number: [2015] TASSC 62
Number of paragraphs: 102

Serial No 62/2015
File No 104/2011

DARREN MAXWELL BURGE
v FIONA MEI-HAN PATTERSON

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT PEARCE J

11 December 2015

At about 12 noon on 6 November 2009 the plaintiff, Darren Burge, was driving his Hilux utility in Liverpool Street in Hobart. His vehicle was stationary just before the intersection with Murray Street. He was waiting for the traffic light. His car was mostly in the centre lane, when it was struck from behind by a van being driven by the defendant. It is admitted that the collision was caused by the negligent driving of the defendant. This is an assessment of Mr Burge's damages for personal injury.
Mr Burge claims that his life has been dramatically affected by a back injury he suffered in the collision. The defendant contends that Mr Burge's evidence about the consequences of the collision is unreliable and inaccurate. The defendant contends that Mr Burge overstates his disability and the restrictions on his domestic, social and recreational activities, and capacity for employment, and the extent to which the claimed injury and damage is contributed to by the collision.

Mr Burge's personal and employment background

Mr Burge was born in 1976. At the date of the collision he was aged 32. He is now 39. His biological mother was single and he has never known his biological father. When still a baby he was adopted by Maxwell and Carolyn Burge of Bothwell. They moved to Bridgewater when he was about a year old. Mrs Burge died when the plaintiff was 9 or 10. Maxwell Burge worked for most of his life operating machinery and driving trucks, and then taxis, until his retirement a couple of years ago. He is still alive. The plaintiff has one adoptive sister, Melinda Burge, who lives in Bridgewater and works in aged care.
The plaintiff was educated to year 10. He said he worked hard at school and obtained reasonable marks, but left part way through year 11 to start work as a trainee at an industrial insulation firm. He stayed only a few months but obtained other employment in a metal powder coating firm for a few years. He then found a job…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Burge v Patterson

Details

AGLC: Burge v Patterson [2015] TASSC 62
Case: [2015] TASSC 62
Decision Date: 11 December 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Burge v Patterson, the plaintiff, Burge, sought compensation for injuries sustained in a workplace accident against the defendant, Patterson. The incident in question, which occurred when Burge was 32 years old, resulted in back pain and an adjustment disorder. The trial took place when Burge was 39, and the court was tasked with determining an appropriate award of general damages to compensate for the pain and suffering and loss of amenities experienced by Burge. The court needed to consider the severity and impact of Burge's injuries, their duration, and the overall effect on Burge's quality of life.

The primary legal issue before the court was the assessment of general damages for the injuries suffered by Burge. The court had to evaluate the extent of the pain and suffering as well as the loss of amenities attributable to the injuries. This involved a careful analysis of medical evidence, expert testimony, and the personal impact of the injuries on Burge's daily life and future prospects. The court also needed to weigh the age and life expectancy of Burge at the time of the accident against the duration and expected persistence of the injuries.

The court concluded that the appropriate award of general damages for Burge's pain and suffering and loss of amenities was $60,000. This decision reflected the court's assessment of the severity of Burge's injuries and their long-term impact. The court considered the evidence provided, including medical reports and expert opinions, to arrive at a figure that it deemed just and reasonable under the circumstances. The court's reasoning was grounded in a balanced evaluation of the evidence and the legal principles applicable to the assessment of general damages in personal injury cases.

The final orders of the court included an award of $60,000 to Burge as general damages for the pain and suffering and loss of amenities resulting from the injuries sustained in the workplace accident. This sum was intended to compensate Burge for the significant impact of the injuries on their life and to provide some measure of financial relief. The court's decision was based on a detailed consideration of the evidence and a careful application of the relevant legal standards.

Orders