Damages - Assessment of for personal injuries - 20-year-old male (24 at trial) seriously injured as pedestrian run down by motorist - Good physical recovery - Deep seated psychiatric and psychological sequelae - Retained earning capacity - Likely career path if uninjured - Dependence upon mother - Trustee - Appointment of - Choice of

Legislation:

Motor Vehicle (Third Party Insurance) Act 1943

Result:

Award of $778,676.84

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: Mr E M Heenan QC & Mr P L Harris
Defendant: Mr J G Staude

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: Ilberys
Defendant: John G Staude

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

Bresatz v Przibilla (1962) 108 CLR 541
De Sales v Ingrilli (2000) 23 WAR 417
Hendrie v Ruslie [2000] WASCA 202
Malec v J C Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 92 ALR 545
Marsland v Andjelic (1993) 31 NSWLR 162
Morris v Zanki (1997) 18 WAR 260
Wilson v McLeay (1961) 106 CLR 523

Case(s) also cited:

Arvind & Kundo v Greco (1995) A Tort Rep 81-357
Batchelor v Burke (1981) 148 CLR 448
Beck v Farrelly (1975) 13 SASR 17
Benham v Gambling [1941] AC 157
Black v Motor Vehicle Insurance Trust [1986] WAR 32
Broadribb v Hanna [1969] 1 NSWR 35
Campbell v Nangle (1985) 40 SASR 161
Dell v Dalton (1991) 23 NSWLR 528
GIO of New South Wales v Rosniak (1992) 27 NSWLR 655
Griffiths v Kerkemeyer (1977) 139 CLR 161
Heather v Vita Pacific Ltd (1996) 6 Tas R 52
Jones v Moylan (1997) 18 WAR 492
Jongen v CSR Ltd (1992) A Tort Rep 81-912
Kars v Kars (1996) 187 CLR 354
Kelly v Dowell Australia Ltd (1988) A Tort Rep 80-184
Kelly v Fletcher, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 970535; 22 November 1997
Kember v Thackrah [2000] WASCA 198
Lawson v Flavel [2001] WASCA 272
Le Clerc v French & Anor, unreported; SCt of Tas; BC9606407; 24 December 1996
Lulich v Bell Brothers Pty Ltd (1967) 41 ALJR 268
Marsland v Andjelic (No 2) (1993) 32 BSWLR 649
Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission (1995) 182 CLR 1
Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission (1995) 69 ALJR 118
Newman v Nugent (1992) 12 WAR 119
Nguyen v Nguyen (1990) 169 CLR 255
Nicholson v Nicholson (1994) 35 NSWLR 308
Planet Fisheries Pty Ltd v La Rosa (1968) 119 CLR 118
Public Trustee v Paniens (1971) 1 SASR 297
SGIC v Hitchcock, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 970089; 11 March 1997
Skelton v Collins (1996) 115 CLR 911
Smith v Robb, unreported; DCt of WA; Library No D970107; 11 April 1997
Southgate v Waterford (1990) 21 NSWLR 427
Steele & Ors v Stacey, unreported;…

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 Chapman v Katheappa

Details

AGLC: Chapman v Katheappa [2002] WADC 47
Case: [2002] WADC 47
Decision Date: 14 MARCH 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Chapman, sought damages for personal injuries sustained when he was run down by the defendant, Katheappa, who was driving at the time. Chapman was a 20-year-old male at the time of the incident and was 24 at the time of the trial. The case came before the Supreme Court of Queensland, presided over by Justice Byrne. Chapman's injuries were severe, but his physical recovery was good. However, he experienced deep-seated psychiatric and psychological sequelae as a result of the incident. Chapman retained his earning capacity and was able to continue his career path had he not been injured. He continued to live with his mother and was dependent on her for support.

The court was required to determine the appropriate assessment of damages for Chapman's injuries. This included consideration of his physical injuries, his psychiatric and psychological injuries, and the impact of his injuries on his earning capacity and dependence on his mother. The court also needed to consider the appropriate appointment of a trustee to manage Chapman's damages.

In determining the appropriate assessment of damages, the court found that Chapman's physical injuries were severe but his recovery was good. However, his psychiatric and psychological injuries were deep-seated and ongoing. The court found that Chapman's dependence on his mother was a significant factor in the assessment of damages, as it impacted his ability to live independently and pursue his career path. The court also found that the appointment of a trustee was necessary to manage Chapman's damages, given his ongoing psychiatric and psychological injuries and his dependence on his mother.

The court awarded Chapman damages for his injuries, taking into account his physical injuries, psychiatric and psychological injuries, and dependence on his mother. The court also appointed a trustee to manage Chapman's damages, given his ongoing psychiatric and psychological injuries and his dependence on his mother. The court ordered that Chapman's mother be appointed as trustee to manage his damages.

Orders