DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Costin v Copson & Anor [2017] QDC 183
PARTIES:
NEIL GREGORY COSTIN
(plaintiff)v
MARK WILLIAM COPSON
(first defendant)and
ALLIANZ AUSTRALIA INSURANCE LIMITED
(second defendant)FILE NO/S:
983/2016
DIVISION:
Civil
PROCEEDING:
Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:
Brisbane District Court
DELIVERED ON:
28 June 2017
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
19, 20 June 2017
JUDGE:
Reid DCJ
ORDER:
1. Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $66,048.00, inclusive of interest.
2. I will hear argument as to costs.
CATCHWORDS:
PERSONAL INJURY – QUANTUM OF DAMAGES – assessment of damages – measure of damages – whether plaintiff will suffer future economic loss – where plaintiff suffers persistent neck pain – where plaintiff lives in Denmark – where plaintiff has not suffered past economic loss – where asymmetry of movement – where symptoms effect ability to engage in activities and perform tasks
COUNSEL:
G A Hampson for the plaintiff
N R Jarro for the defendantSOLICITORS:
O’Donnell Legal for the plaintiff
Moray & Agnew for the defendantAllianz Australia Insurance Ltd v McCarthy [2012] QCA 312
Introduction
The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident on 4 March 2014. He was the front seat passenger in a motor vehicle struck from behind the vehicle driven by the first defendant, and insured with the second defendant. As a consequence of the first defendant’s vehicle striking the vehicle in which the plaintiff was a passenger it in turn struck the vehicle in front. A concertina collision then eventuated, involving a number of cars.
The second defendant has admitted liability for the accident. The only issue is the quantum of the plaintiff’s claim.
Background
Mr Costin was born on 18 July 1964 and is currently almost 53 years of age. Although he was born in Australia he has resided in Denmark for the last 20 years. He is married with one dependent daughter who was born 22 September 2012. His wife is a school teacher. He works with a local authority in Denmark. He is a qualified painter but has experience in a number of fields, including kitchen renovations and servicing ventilation units. The work he does seems to largely involve painting, but also often maintenance of schools and old person’s homes.
He has a prior history of some lower back and right knee problems, to which I shall later refer, but no history of neck problems. I note a reference in a report of Dr McPhee of the plaintiff telling him that prior to the accident he woke occasionally with some neck stiffness but the plaintiff said this was a minor and occasional, and Dr McPhee did not appear to place any importance on it.
At the time of the accident he was in Australia visiting his family. He was working to assist in his brother’s sign making business. He obtained 12 months leave from his Danish employment and came to Australia in June 2013.…
Continue reading Costin v Copson
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Costin v Copson [2017] QDC 183
- Case
- [2017] QDC 183
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the evidence presented regarding the plaintiff's condition, including expert medical testimony and her personal accounts of the impact of her injury. It was noted that the plaintiff had not suffered any past economic loss but was experiencing significant non-economic loss due to her persistent neck pain. The court considered the asymmetry of movement and the plaintiff's decreased ability to perform tasks and activities, which affected her overall quality of life. The court found that the plaintiff would likely suffer from her condition in the future, which warranted an award of damages for pain and suffering. The court assessed the damages, taking into account the plaintiff's age, her lifestyle, and the impact of her injury on her future activities.
The court awarded the plaintiff a sum of $66,048.00, inclusive of interest, for her non-economic loss. The judgment recognised the significant impact the injury had on the plaintiff's quality of life and her ability to engage in daily activities. The court scheduled a further hearing to address the costs associated with the proceedings. This decision underscores the importance of considering the broader impact of an injury on an individual's life when assessing damages for personal injury cases.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $66,048.00, inclusive of interest.
2. I will hear argument as to costs.
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.