Clark v Hall

In the case of Clark v Hall, the plaintiff, Ms Clark, sought damages from the first defendant, Mr Hall, and his insurer, the second defendant, following an accident where she was injured while standing between her car and trailer to retrieve tools to change a flat battery. The plaintiff claimed damages for injuries sustained in the accident, including an open fracture of her right great toe, other minor injuries, and psychological injuries related to the accident. The first defendant was found to have driven without due care and attention, colliding with the back of the plaintiff's trailer. The dispute centred on whether the plaintiff had been negligent by positioning herself between her car and trailer and/or by allegedly failing to operate hazard lights.

The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff's actions constituted contributory negligence, which could reduce the damages awarded. The court also needed to decide the measure of general damages for the plaintiff's injuries, including the assessment of psychological injuries, and the measure of damages for past economic loss and loss of future earning capacity. The court needed to interpret relevant statutory provisions, particularly in relation to the assessment of damages and the apportionment of damages where contributory negligence is found.

The court found that the plaintiff was not contributory negligent in positioning herself between her car and trailer, as it was a reasonable action under the circumstances. The court found that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the plaintiff failed to operate the hazard lights. The court awarded general damages for the plaintiff's injuries, including psychological injuries, and assessed damages for past economic loss and loss of future earning capacity. The court also considered the impact of the Civil Liability Act 2003 and the Civil Liability Regulation 2003 Schedule 4 on the apportionment of damages. The court amended the reasons and figures constituting the judgment to reflect the Court of Appeal's interpretation of the statutory provisions.

The court ordered that judgment be entered in favour of the plaintiff in the sum of $285,260 and that the second defendant pay the plaintiff's costs on the indemnity basis.