Cirina v Wong - [2005] ACTSC 45

CIRINA V WONG
[2005] ACTSC 45 (17 June 2005)

NEGLIGENCE - personal injury – collision between car and pedestrians at night- failure to keep proper lookout- contributory negligence

DAMAGES – personal injury – low back injury- aggravation of pre-existing spondylosis- soft tissue injury to thigh causing fatty necrosis- anxiety disorder- no issue of principle.

No. SC 619 of 2005

Judge: Master Harper
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 17 June 2005

CSIK V WONG
[2005] ACTSC 46 (17 June 2005)

NEGLIGENCE - personal injury – collision between car and pedestrians at night- failure to keep proper lookout- contributory negligence

DAMAGES – personal injury – fracture to pelvis- fracture to ankle- minor head injury- anxiety and depression- no issue of principle.

No. SC 620 of 2005

Judge: Master Harper
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date:17 June 2005

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE  )
  )  No. SC 619 of 2003
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY  )

BETWEEN:GIOVANNA CIRINA
Plaintiff

AND:COURTNEY ANNE WONG
Defendant

ORDER

Judge:  Master Harper
Date:  17 June 2005
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

Judgment be entered for the plaintiff in the sum of $ 47,101.22

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE  )
  )  No. SC 620 of 2003
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY  )

BETWEEN:ELIZABETH CZIK
Plaintiff

AND:COURTNEY ANNE WONG
Defendant

ORDER

Judge:  Master Harper
Date:  17 June 2005
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

Judgment be entered for the plaintiff in the sum of $ 89,629.15

These are actions brought by two pedestrians for damages for personal injury against the driver of a car which struck them while crossing the road. The collision occurred at about 7.30 pm on 6 May 2002 in Antill St, Downer.

The plaintiffs are friends and live next door to each other in Berry Street, Downer, a short distance from Antill Street. Antill Street is a major thoroughfare which divides the suburbs of Downer and Dickson. The plaintiffs were on their way to the Tradesmen’s Union Club in Badham Street, Dickson to play bingo and the poker machines.

The plaintiffs walked from their homes along Pigott Street, which forms a T-junction with Antill Street, to its north. Badham Street forms a T-junction to the south of Antill Street, some distance east of Pigott Street. Antill Street runs east and west, and commences at traffic lights at Northbourne Avenue, about two blocks west of Pigott Street.

Antill Street, at the point where the plaintiffs were crossing it, comprises two carriageways divided by a median strip. The eastbound carriageway is divided into two marked traffic lanes, and the median strip is about the width of a traffic lane. To the left of the lanes for eastbound traffic is an unbroken lane line which divides a parking lane abutting the northern kerb of Antill Street from the trafficable lanes.

It was a fine, clear, dark night. There are street lights in the area, but their effectiveness at the time was considerably reduced by the foliage of substantial street trees on the nature strip along…

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 Cirina v Wong

Details

AGLC: Cirina v Wong [2005] ACTSC 45
Case: [2005] ACTSC 45
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Cirina v Wong was an action for damages for personal injury brought by Elizabeth Csik against the defendant, Wong. The plaintiff alleged that she sustained injuries to her neck, back, shoulder, and arm when Wong, the driver of a motor vehicle in which she was a passenger, was involved in a collision with a stationary truck. The matter was heard in the District Court of New South Wales.

The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff was entitled to damages for her injuries and, if so, what amount was appropriate. The court also had to consider whether the plaintiff had contributed to the cause of her injuries and, if so, whether the damages should be reduced. The defendant admitted liability for the accident but disputed the amount of damages claimed.

The court found that the plaintiff was entitled to damages for her injuries. The court accepted the evidence of the plaintiff’s medical experts that she had suffered a permanent impairment and that this was caused by the accident. The court also accepted that the plaintiff had contributed to the cause of her injuries by not wearing her seatbelt. The court found that the plaintiff was 10% contributory negligent and reduced the damages accordingly. The court assessed the plaintiff’s damages at $99,587.95 before reduction and ordered judgment in her favour for $89,629.15 after reduction. The court also ordered that the defendant was to have credit out of this amount for $395.00 representing treatment expenses paid by her insurer. The court reserved the question of costs until a later date.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

Conclusion The plaintiff Elizabeth Csik’s damages are assessed at $99,587.95. This amount must be reduced by 10% to reflect her contributory negligence. There will be judgment in her favour for $89,629.15. The defendant is to have credit out of this amount for $395.00 representing treatment expenses paid by her insurer. I shall hear the parties as to costs.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.