Cox v Crooks - [1999] TASSC 152

[1999] TASSC 152

CITATION: Cox v Crooks [1999] TASSC 152

PARTIES:  COX, Brian James
  v
  CROOKS, Steven Richard

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
JURISDICTION:  Original
FILE NO/S:  121/1994
DELIVERED ON:  23 December 1999
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATES:  11 - 13 October 1999
JUDGMENT OF:  Underwood J

CATCHWORDS:

Torts - Negligence - Essentials of action for negligence - Damage - Causation - Generally - What event causally responsible for whiplash injury.

Aust Dig Torts [59]

Damages - Particular awards of general damages - Tasmania - Total loss of sense of smell and taste - Minor back injury - Substantially general damages only - Global figure of $50,000.

Aust Dig Damages [61]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Plaintiff:  G L Jones
             Defendant:  C N Dockray
Solicitors:
             Plaintiff:  Douglas & Collins
             Defendant:  C N Dockray

Judgment Number: [1999] TASSC 152
Number of Paragraphs: 59

Serial No 152/1999
File No 121/1994

BRIAN JAMES COX v STEVEN RICHARD CROOKS

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT UNDERWOOD J

23 December 1999

Introduction

In this action, it is common ground that the plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident on 24 June 1991, and judgment has been entered for damages to be assessed. On that day, the plaintiff was driving his employer's Ford station wagon along the East Tamar Highway from Launceston towards George Town. It was raining and the road was slippery. The plaintiff was travelling at about 90 kilometres per hour. As he was travelling near the turn off to East Arm Road, a vehicle driven by the defendant in the opposite direction crossed onto the incorrect side of the road and crashed into the plaintiff's vehicle.

In the accident, the plaintiff suffered a fracture to his nose, facial lacerations and bruising. It appears likely that he hit his head on the steering wheel. Electrical equipment in the back of the station wagon moved forward on impact. Some object hit the back of the driver's seat with such force that it was twisted slightly to the right.

The plaintiff was taken to the Launceston General Hospital, there treated in the Accident and Emergency Department and sent home. Two days later, he was admitted as an inpatient for the reduction of the fracture. The fracture has healed satisfactorily, but the plaintiff has been left with a permanent loss of smell. There is no dispute about that. The lacerations have healed satisfactorily leaving some minor residual scarring. It is not significant.

The plaintiff returned to his work as an electrician and after some time began to experience neck ache, headaches and lumbar sacral pain. The symptoms gradually became worse and, in consequence, the plaintiff's earning capacity has been substantially diminished and the quality of his life detrimentally affected.

The issue

At trial, the veracity of the plaintiff was not seriously challenged and the defendant accepted liability to pay for loss and damage caused by his tortious act. The principal issue in this litigation is whether the plaintiff's neck pain and headaches are causally related to the defendant's tort.…

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 Cox v Crooks

Details

AGLC: Cox v Crooks [1999] TASSC 152
Case: [1999] TASSC 152
Decision Date: 23 December 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Cox v Crooks was a case heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania in which the plaintiff, Brian James Cox, sought damages from the defendant, Steven Richard Crooks, for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The central issue in the case was whether the plaintiff's neck pain and headaches were causally related to the accident. The plaintiff claimed that he experienced neck ache, headaches, and lumbar sacral pain following the accident, which worsened over time and led to a substantial diminishment of his earning capacity and a detrimental impact on his quality of life. The defendant accepted liability for the loss and damage caused by his tortious act.

The court found that the plaintiff returned to work two weeks after the accident and began experiencing headaches and soreness in his lower back and neck. The symptoms progressively worsened over time, leading to the plaintiff's termination of employment due to recurring back injuries. The plaintiff's medical history revealed that he had suffered from pre-existing degenerative changes in his cervical spine, which were asymptomatic before the accident.

The court considered the medical opinions of various practitioners, who offered differing views on the causal link between the accident and the plaintiff's neck pain and headaches. While some medical experts believed the accident was the cause, others argued that a trivial and unremarkable event could have caused the onset of symptoms. The court accepted the opinion of the orthopaedic surgeons over that of the other medical experts, as it was based on three separate sources and provided a more convincing reason for their opinion.

In terms of damages, the court awarded the plaintiff $50,000 in general damages for the injuries caused in the accident, including the loss of his sense of smell and taste, mild pain in his lumbar-sacral area, and the impact on his earning capacity. The court also considered the plaintiff's net lost wages for the two weeks following the accident, which amounted to $902. The court postponed ordering entry of judgment to allow counsel to address any relevant claims for special damages and/or payments made pursuant to the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988.

Orders