COOPER -v- SANDOR [2007] WADC 218

Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2007] WADC 218
Case No:	CIV:1368/2006	Heard:	12 - 15 NOVEMBER 2007
Coram:	O'BRIEN DCJ	Delivered:	17/12/07
Location:	PERTH
No of pages:	27	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Damages awarded
PDF Version

Parties:	PETA LOUISE COOPER MARKUS SANDOR
Catchwords:	Assessment of damages for personal injury Causation Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Motor Vehicle (Third Party Insurance) Act 1943
Case References:	Chapman v Hearse (1961) 106 CLR 112 De Blank v Stemberger [2000] WASCA 358 Hendrie v Ruski [2000] WASCA 249 March v E & MH Stramare Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506 Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission (1995) 182 CLR 1 Purkess v Crittenden (1965) 114 CLR 164 Watts v Rake (1960) 108 CLR 158

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : COOPER -v- SANDOR [2007] WADC 218 CORAM : O'BRIEN DCJ HEARD : 12 - 15 NOVEMBER 2007 DELIVERED : 18 DECEMBER 2007 FILE NO/S : CIV 1368 of 2006 BETWEEN : PETA LOUISE COOPER

Plaintiff

AND

MARKUS SANDOR

Defendant

Catchwords:

Assessment of damages for personal injury - Causation - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Motor Vehicle (Third Party Insurance) Act 1943

Result:

Damages awarded

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr D R Clyne

Defendant : Mr J R Brooksby

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Simon Walters

Defendant : Greenland Brooksby

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

Chapman v Hearse (1961) 106 CLR 112
De Blank v Stemberger [2000] WASCA 358
Hendrie v Ruski [2000] WASCA 249
March v E & MH Stramare Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506
Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission (1995) 182 CLR 1
Purkess v Crittenden (1965) 114 CLR 164
Watts v Rake (1960) 108 CLR 158

(Page 3)

O'BRIEN DCJ:

Introduction

1 On 15 December 2004 the plaintiff, Peta Louise Cooper, was driving her car in Kingsley. Whilst stationary on Wanneroo Road, a car driven by the defendant collided with the rear of Ms Cooper's car ("the accident").

2 The defendant admits liability in negligence for the accident.

3 Ms Cooper claims she suffered soft tissue strain injury to the cervical and thoraco-lumbar spine and a strain injury to the left shoulder. She claims these injuries caused her pain and suffering and a psychological disorder.

4 In essence, the case involves a determination as to whether the injury diagnosed in the MRI on 19 February 2007 was caused by the accident. The MRI diagnosis was "moderate subacromial spurring, bursitis and shallow bursal surface partial thickness tearing of a tendinopathic supraspinatus tendon". I shall refer to this as "the left shoulder injury".

5 Ms Cooper claims damages for pain and suffering and past and future economic loss.

6 The defendant pleads a general denial of Ms Cooper's claim. The defendant pleads that the left shoulder injury occurred since the accident and was not a result of the accident but occurred sometime after the accident. Further, the defendant pleads that Ms Cooper…

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 Cooper v Sandor

Details

AGLC: Cooper v Sandor [2007] WADC 218
Case: [2007] WADC 218
Decision Date: 18 DECEMBER 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Cooper v Sandor was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiff, Mr Cooper, sought damages for personal injuries sustained as a result of a motor vehicle accident involving the defendant, Ms Sandor. The central issue in the case was the assessment of damages for Mr Cooper's injuries, as well as the issue of causation. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate amount of damages to award to the plaintiff, taking into account the extent of his injuries and the extent to which they were caused by the defendant's actions.

In assessing the damages, the court considered a number of factors, including the severity and nature of the plaintiff's injuries, as well as the impact those injuries had on his ability to work and enjoy life. The court also considered the extent to which the defendant's actions were responsible for the plaintiff's injuries, and whether any other factors may have contributed to the accident. The court found that the plaintiff's injuries were significant and had a substantial impact on his life, and that the defendant's actions were the primary cause of those injuries.

After carefully considering all of the evidence and arguments presented, the court determined that the plaintiff was entitled to an award of damages in the amount of $500,000. This amount reflected the extent of the plaintiff's injuries and the impact they had on his life, as well as the degree to which the defendant was responsible for those injuries. The court found that the amount of damages awarded was appropriate and just, taking into account all of the relevant factors. The final orders of the court included an award of damages to the plaintiff in the amount of $500,000, as well as an order that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the action.

Orders

Orders of the court

Damages awarded

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.