Corowa v Winner

Case [2019] QDC 135


DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Corowa v Winner & Anor [2019] QDC 135

PARTIES:

ISAIAH SHEM COROWA

(Plaintiff)

v

BRENTON JOHN WINNER

(First Defendant)

and

ALIANCE AUSTRALIA INSURANCE LTD (ABN 15000122850)

(Second Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

82/2012

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Mackay

DELIVERED ON:

6 August 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Mackay

HEARING DATE:

11, 12 and 13 March 2019

JUDGE:

Richards DCJ

ORDER:

Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed.

The plaintiff is ordered to pay the Second defendant’s costs of and incidental to this action to be assessed unless otherwise agreed.

CATCHWORDS:

DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURY – TORTS – measure of – consequential loss of earnings and earning capacity – where the plaintiff suffered permanent injury from a motor vehicle operated by the first defendant – –  assault and battery – where there is contribution and provocation by plaintiff – whether the defendant used reasonable force in self-defence

Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld)
Civil Liability Regulation 2014 (Qld), sch 4
Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 93B

Poole v Piggott [2000] QDC 254
Fontin v Katapodis (1962) 108 CLR 177

-COUNSEL:

P E Clark (solicitor) for the plaintiff

A Arnold counsel for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Strutynski Law for the plaintiff

Moray & Agnew for the defendant

  1. The plaintiff’s claim seeks damages for personal injuries and consequential loss as a result of injuries sustained when he was struck by a motor vehicle driven by the first defendant, Brenton John Winner. The motor vehicle was insured by the second defendant. The plaintiff also claimed aggravated and exemplary damages for unlawful battery.

  1. The statement of claim alleges that on 14 December 2009 at approximately 7.00 pm the first defendant drove deliberately at the plaintiff by driving his vehicle onto the footpath and over the plaintiff’s right foot.  There were resulting significant injuries. 

  1. The plaintiff initially claimed general damages in the sum of $45,000 together with loss of income of approximately $600 net per week until a retirement age of 65, medication in the sum of $500 as special damages, a claim for future expenses of $20,000 for the possibility of an amputation, a Griffiths v Kerkemeyer[1] claim of $7,800 for past assistance and $5,000 for future assistance, together with exemplary damages of $20,000 and aggravated damages of $25,000.

  1. At the trial of this action the claim for negligence was abandoned,[2] as was the Griffiths v Kerkemeyer claim and the claim for a possible future amputation. The first defendant has now deceased therefore the claims for aggravated and exemplary damages were also abandoned.

    [2] T3-19 L45

FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE

  1. There is no dispute that on 14 September 2009 at or about 18 Blackwood Street Slade Point Mackay, the first defendant deliberately drove his motor vehicle at the plaintiff and in doing so drove over the foot of the plaintiff causing him injury, namely:

1.          A severe crush injury to the right foot resulting in an extensive soft tissue degloving injury requiring extensive plastic surgery/skin grafts.

2.          A fractured dislocation…

Continue reading Corowa v Winner

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Corowa v Winner [2019] QDC 135
Case
[2019] QDC 135
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Corowa v Winner involved the plaintiff, Corowa, who sought damages for personal injury and assault and battery from the defendants, Winner and another. Corowa alleged that Winner had caused his injuries through negligent operation of a motor vehicle, and that the second defendant had assaulted and battered him. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of the relevant jurisdiction. The primary legal issues before the court were the measure of damages for the plaintiff’s consequential loss of earnings and earning capacity, and whether the second defendant used reasonable force in self-defence given the plaintiff's contribution and provocation.

The court considered the extent of Corowa’s injuries and the impact on his ability to earn income in the future. In assessing the damages, the court took into account the nature of Corowa’s injuries, his age, and his prospects for rehabilitation and future employment. The court also examined the second defendant’s actions in the context of self-defence, weighing the evidence of provocation and contribution by Corowa against the force used. Ultimately, the court found that the second defendant’s use of force was reasonable under the circumstances, and that Corowa’s claim for assault and battery was not substantiated.

Given the findings, the court dismissed Corowa’s claim for damages. The court ordered Corowa to pay the costs of the second defendant, unless otherwise agreed, highlighting the lack of merit in Corowa’s claims against both defendants. This decision underscores the importance of substantiating claims of personal injury and assault, as well as the need to carefully assess the proportionality of force in self-defence situations.

Orders

Orders of the court

Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed.

The plaintiff is ordered to pay the Second defendant’s costs of and incidental to this action to be assessed unless otherwise agreed.

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.