Coates v Carter - [1951] HCA 30

Damages-Pecuniary loss from personal injury-Damages awarded by jury-

Inadequate-Unreasonable-New trial generally.

If an appellate court arrives at the conclusion that an award of damages is SO small as to be unreasonable then, prima facie, the verdict should be set aside and a new trial ordered, either of the whole action or limited to the assessment of damages.

In an action to recover damages for injuries caused by the respondent's negligence it was shown that the injuries were very serious-involving three Webb, Fullagar fractures of the lower jaw, the loss of some teeth, difficulty in fitting dentures and disfigurement--ane were permanent in character; that they had inflicted much pain and suffering and that mastication disabilities would probably have a prejudicial effect upon the appellant's health. The jury correctly assessed the special damages, but awarded the sum of £310 only for general damages, actual and potential, including pain and suffering.

Held that the sum awarded as general damages was, in the circumstances,

SO inadequate as to entitle the appellant to a new trial.

Decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Full Court) reversed.

APPEAL from the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

An action was brought in the Supreme Court of New South Wales by Richard Coates against Edward George Harcourt Carter to recover damages in the sum of £5,000 for injuries, pain and suffering sustained by the plaintiff and the loss consequent upon those injuries which he alleged arose from a collision between a

82 CLR 538

motor cycle which he was riding, with a pillion rider on it, and a motor car negligently driven by the defendant.

The plaintiff proved special damages to an amount of £165 consisting of hospital, ambulance and dental expenses, damage to clothing and loss of wages.

The jury returned a verdict in favour of the plaintiff in the sum of £475.

The Full Court of the Supreme Court (Street C.J. and Owen J., Herron J. dissenting) dismissed an appeal by the plaintiff, and from that decision he appealed to the High Court.

Further facts appear in the judgments hereunder. E. S. Miller K.C. (with him S. Ross), for the appellant. It is well established that a verdict of a jury will be set aside if, upon the evidence, it was SO grossly inadequate as to show that the jury could not have properly applied their minds to the relevant issues. The sum of £310 awarded as general damages was mani- festly grossly inadequate having regard to the permanent injury sustained by the appellant and the pain and suffering which must necessarily have been involved. It is conceded that if a new trial be granted it should be granted generally.

L. C. Badham K.C. (with him C. L. D. Meares), for the respondent. The Court should not disturb the verdict of the jury. The damages awarded by it were not unreasonable in the circumstances, nor does the evidence show, even inferentially, that there must have been a compromise between the members…

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 Coates v Carter

Details

AGLC: Coates v Carter [1951] HCA 30
Case: [1951] HCA 30
Decision Date: 14 June 1951

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Richard Coates, brought an action in the Supreme Court of New South Wales against the respondent, Edward George Harcourt Carter, seeking damages for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle collision. The appellant alleged the respondent's negligence caused the accident, resulting in serious injuries to his jaw, including multiple fractures, loss of teeth, disfigurement, and ongoing pain and suffering. A jury awarded the appellant £475 in total damages, comprising £165 in special damages and £310 for general damages. The appellant appealed to the High Court of Australia after the Full Court of the Supreme Court dismissed his appeal against the jury's verdict.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the sum awarded for general damages (£310) was so inadequate as to be unreasonable, thereby entitling the appellant to a new trial. The court was required to determine if the jury, in assessing general damages for pain, suffering, permanent disability, and future consequences, had failed to properly consider all relevant aspects of the appellant's injuries and their impact. This involved assessing whether the jury's award bore a reasonable proportion to the severity of the injuries, the pain and suffering endured, and the permanent disfigurement and functional impairments, including difficulties with mastication and potential future health issues.

The High Court reasoned that while the assessment of damages is primarily within the province of the jury, their verdict is subject to review if it is demonstrably unreasonable. Applying this principle, the court found that the £310 awarded for general damages was unreasonably small given the serious and permanent nature of the appellant's injuries. Despite acknowledging that the jury could discount certain expert opinions regarding future health consequences and consider pre-existing dental conditions, the court concluded that the extent of the fractures, the pain and suffering, the period of incapacitation, the removal of teeth and bone, and the resulting disfigurement and mastication difficulties warranted a significantly higher award. The court held that the jury must have failed to adequately consider all heads of damage, leading to an unreasonable assessment.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, discharged the order of the Supreme Court, and ordered a new trial of the action. The costs of the first trial were to abide the event, and the respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal to the Full Court of the Supreme Court and the costs of the High Court appeal.

Orders