Collins v Stratford (No 2) - [2008] SADC 67

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil)
COLLINS v STRATFORD (No 2)
[2008] SADC 67
Judgment of His Honour Judge Herriman
3 June 2008
DAMAGES - MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT - MEASURE OF DAMAGES - PERSONAL INJURIES
Motor vehicle accident victim - female aged 36. Upper spinal injuries, post-traumatic stress disorder, adjustment disorder, major depression, psychotic episodes - leading to schizoaffective disorder. Social withdrawal. Significantly reduced participation in family life and household tasks. Obsession with intrusive thoughts. No prospects of future employment and continuing decline in level of functioning. How assessed. Awards: non-ecomonic loss (48) $82,080; past economic loss $68,378; interest on past economic loss $7,057; future economic loss $304,850; superannuation benefits $39,137; gratuitous services - past $127,000; interest on past gratuitous services $13,960; future care $1,291,290; past medical expenses $81,710.74; future medical expenses $666,085.
Wrongs Act 1936 s 24B(2)(a), s 24H, referred to.
Van Gervan v Fenton (1992) 175 CLR 327; Bresatz v Przibilla (1962) 108 CLR 541; Campbell v Nangle (1985) 40 SASR 161; Beare v Slattery (2002) 218 LSJS 338; Griffiths v Kerkemeyer (1976-1977) 139 CLR 161; Beasley v Marshall (1986) 40 SASR 544; Calvaresi v Lawson (1995) 184 LSJS 147; Wheeler v Page (1982) 31 SASR 1; Malec v JC Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638; The National Insurance Co. of NZ Ltd v Espagne (1960-1961) 105 CLR 569; Blundell v Musgrave (1956) 96 CLR 73; Edwards v Butler [2004] SADC 190, applied.
Wilson v McLeay (1961) 106 CLR 523, considered.

COLLINS v STRATFORD (No 2)
[2008] SADC 67
1. Introduction

On 6 December 2002, the plaintiff was the driver of a motor car involved in a collision with a semi-trailer at Coomandook, south-east of Adelaide.
At that time, the plaintiff was executing a right‑hand turn off the main highway to access a toilet block in the township. For reasons which I have already found, the defendant’s semitrailer collided with the rear offside of her vehicle and shunted it a considerable distance across the oncoming laneway and to the right-hand side of the highway.
In consequence of the accident, the plaintiff suffered personal injuries from which she has not yet recovered. Her mother, Anne Vause, and her daughter, Kirsty Vause, were in the car with her at the time.
I have already found that the defendant was wholly responsible for the accident. It now remains to assess the plaintiff’s damages.
2. Plaintiff’s Evidence – June 2007
The plaintiff was born on 4 June 1966 in Mount Gambier. She attended primary and high school there, to Year 10 level, and afterwards was employed in clerical work for about 12 months.
She then left the town at about the age of 17 and went to live with her boyfriend in Victoria. On 28 March 1986 they returned to Mount Gambier, where their child, Kirsty, was born.
In late 1987, the plaintiff and her partner separated and she moved with Kirsty to live…

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 Collins v Stratford (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Collins v Stratford (No 2) [2008] SADC 67
Case: [2008] SADC 67
Decision Date: 3 June 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Collins v Stratford, the plaintiff sought compensation for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The plaintiff, aged 36 at the time of the accident, suffered a range of severe injuries including upper spinal injuries, post-traumatic stress disorder, adjustment disorder, major depression, and psychotic episodes, which culminated in schizoaffective disorder. The plaintiff experienced significant social withdrawal, a marked reduction in participation in family life and household tasks, and an obsession with intrusive thoughts. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate quantum of damages for the plaintiff's injuries. The legal issues included the assessment of non-economic loss, past and future economic loss, future care costs, medical expenses, and interest on past economic loss and past gratuitous services.

The court considered the severity and impact of the plaintiff's injuries, as well as the resulting decline in her level of functioning and prospects for future employment. The court assessed non-economic loss at 48 weeks, awarding $82,080. Past economic loss was quantified at $68,378, with interest thereon amounting to $7,057. Future economic loss was awarded at $304,850, and superannuation benefits were calculated at $39,137. The court also awarded $127,000 for past gratuitous services, with interest thereon at $13,960. Future care costs were set at $1,291,290, and medical expenses were awarded as $81,710.74 for the past and $666,085 for the future.

After considering all evidence and arguments presented, the court determined the total compensation payable to the plaintiff. The court found the plaintiff's claims to be substantiated and awarded the specified amounts for non-economic loss, past and future economic loss, future care, medical expenses, and interest. The court's decision provided a comprehensive assessment of the plaintiff's damages, reflecting the significant impact of her injuries on her life and future prospects.

Orders