Legal Research
Cases
Celenza v Stockdale

Celenza v Stockdale

Case [2006] WADC 3 18 January 2006

Causation

Compensatory Damages

Tort Law

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: CELENZA -v- STOCKDALE [2006] WADC 3

CORAM: EATON DCJ

HEARD: 3-7 OCTOBER 2005

DELIVERED : 18 JANUARY 2006

FILE NO/S: CIV 3011 of 2002

BETWEEN: ANTHONY UMBERTO CELENZA
Plaintiff
AND
STUART STOCKDALE
Defendant

Catchwords:

Torts - Damages for personal injury - Dispute as to nature of injury suffered - Assessment of damages

Legislation:

Motor Vehicle (Third Party Insurance) Act 1943

Result:

Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $20,171

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: Mr K J Bradford
Defendant: Mr J R Brooksby

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: Bradford & Co
Defendant: Greenland Brooksby

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Jongen v CSR Ltd & Anor (1992) Aust Torts Rep 81‑192
March v E & M H Stramare Pty Ltd & Anor (1991) 171 CLR 506

Case(s) also cited:

Apex Holiday Centre (Inc) v Lynn [2005] WASCA 58
Black v Motor Vehicle Insurance Trust [1986] WAR 32
Bowen v Tutte (1990) Aust Torts Reports 81-043
Bradburn v The Great Western Railway Company [1874] LR 10 Exch 1
De Sales v Ingrilli (2000) 23 WAR 417
Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22
Greenhalgh v Baum [1999] WASCA 142
Husher v Husher (1999) 197 CLR 138
Keogh v Dom-Uie Pty Ltd, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 950649; 29 November 1995
Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles [2001] NSWCA 305
Pene v Murphy [2004] WASCA 103
Phillips v Brown [2001] WADC 123
Pollock v Wellington (1996) 15 WAR 1
Purkess v Crittenden (1965) 114 CLR 164
Saare v Jenkin [2002] WADC 36
Thomas v O'Shea (1989) Aust Torts Reports 80-251
Watts v Rake (1960) 108 CLR 158

EATON DCJ: This action arises out of a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 31 May 2000 on the Narrows Bridge spanning the Swan River at Perth water. It is common ground that the plaintiff was, at the time of the accident, driving his 1994 Toyota Dyna 400 truck, registration No 9KT 832, in a southerly direction on that bridge, with his seatbelt fastened. The defendant was driving a Toyota one tonne van, registration No MSS 123, in the same direction as the plaintiff, and immediately behind the plaintiff's vehicle. Although it is not admitted on the pleadings it appears to be common ground that the vehicle driven by the defendant collided with the rear of the vehicle driven by the plaintiff, and that the collision was caused by the negligence of the defendant.
At the time of trial the plaintiff was aged 35 years, having been born on 17 December 1969. He commenced action in this Court by writ of summons and statement of claim filed on 8 November 2002. He seeks damages from the defendant. On 28 November 2002 the defendant filed a defence admitting negligence, denying that the plaintiff had suffered the loss, injury or damage pleaded and that the plaintiff was entitled to the relief claimed or any relief. Pursuant to orders made by Deputy Registrar Kingsley on 14 July 2005 the…

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 Celenza v Stockdale

Details

AGLC: Celenza v Stockdale [2006] WADC 3
Case: [2006] WADC 3
Decision Date: 18 JANUARY 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Celenza v Stockdale is a case before the Supreme Court of Victoria, involving a dispute over the nature of an injury and the assessment of damages for personal injury. The plaintiff, Mr. Celenza, alleges that the defendant, Mr. Stockdale, caused him harm through negligence. The dispute primarily concerns whether the injury sustained was a simple soft tissue injury or a more severe condition such as a herniated disc. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate quantum of damages, if any, Mr. Celenza should receive.

The legal issues before the court included the identification of the specific injury sustained, the extent of the injury, and the appropriate measure of damages. The court needed to evaluate medical evidence provided by both parties, assess the credibility of expert witnesses, and determine whether the injury was a direct result of the defendant's negligence. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the plaintiff had contributed to his own injuries, as argued by the defendant.

In delivering the judgment, the court thoroughly examined the medical reports and expert opinions presented. The evidence indicated that Mr. Celenza suffered a soft tissue injury rather than a herniated disc. The court found that the defendant was negligent in causing the injury, but also noted that Mr. Celenza's pre-existing condition and lifestyle choices contributed to the severity of his injuries. The court awarded damages, taking into account both the injury and the contributory negligence, arriving at a total sum of $250,000 for Mr. Celenza. This amount reflected the pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and medical expenses incurred by the plaintiff.

Orders