Cummings v Edwards - [2003] WADC 28

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: CUMMINGS -v- EDWARDS & ANOR [2003] WADC 28

CORAM: COMMISSIONER EATON

HEARD: 23 & 24 SEPTEMBER 2002

DELIVERED : 19 FEBRUARY 2003

FILE NO/S: CIV 2917 of 2001

BETWEEN: ROBERT ARTHUR CUMMINGS
Plaintiff
AND
ELIZABETH MARIE EDWARDS
First Defendant
BERYL MOULE
Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Personal injury - Assessment of damages - Moderate soft tissue injury to cervical spine

Legislation:

Motor Vehicle (Third Party Insurance) Act 1943

Result:

Damages of $101,226 awarded

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff:     Mr A S Stavrianou
First Defendant             :     Mr P R Momber
Second Defendant         :     Mr P R Momber

Solicitors:

Plaintiff:     Simon Walters
First Defendant             :     Peter Momber
Second Defendant         :     Peter Momber

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

Bowen v Tutte (1990) A Tort Rep 81-043
Husher v Husher (1999) 197 CLR 138
Seymour v Gough [1996] 1 Qd R 89
Spargo v Haden Engineering (1993) 60 SASR 39
Thomas v O'Shea (1989) A Tort Rep 80-251

Case(s) also cited:

Watts v Rake (1960) 108 CLR 158
Purkess v Crittenden (1965) 114 CLR 164
Randall v Dul (1994) 13 WAR 205
Foyster v Goynich [1984] WAR 80
Black v Motor Vehicle Insurance Trust [1986] WAR 32
Wynn v NSW Insurance Ministerial Corporation (1995) 184 CLR 485

COMMISSIONER EATON: In this action the plaintiff, Robert Arthur Cummings, sues Elizabeth Marie Edwards, the first defendant, and Beryl Moule, the second defendant for damages. In each case the cause of action is negligence. Each arises out of a motor vehicle accident in which the plaintiff was involved. The first occurred on 28 June 2000 on Nicholson Road, Canning Vale and the second occurred on 24 February 2002 at the intersection of Ranford Road and Lake Street, Armadale, both in Western Australia. Each accident involved a collision between a vehicle being driven by the plaintiff and another vehicle. In the first, the first defendant was the driver of the other vehicle and in the second, the second defendant was the driver of the other vehicle.
By his amended statement of claim the plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that the first accident was caused entirely by the first defendant's negligence and that the second accident was caused entirely by the second defendant's negligence. Each defendant, by their pleading, admits liability. The plaintiff claims to have suffered personal injury, loss and damage by reason of the negligence of both the first and the second defendants. The defendants, by their pleading, deny that the plaintiff sustained the injuries, loss and damage alleged or any injury, loss or damage. The defendants deny that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed by him or to any relief at all.
In consequence, there being no issue as to liability in each case, the issues for trial were to what extent, if at all, the plaintiff suffered injury, loss or damage by reason of either or both of the two accidents and, if he did suffer injury, loss or damage by reason of either…

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 Cummings v Edwards

Details

AGLC: Cummings v Edwards [2003] WADC 28
Case: [2003] WADC 28
Decision Date: 19 FEBRUARY 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Cummings v Edwards involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Cummings, and the defendant, Edwards, over the amount of damages to be awarded for a personal injury sustained by Cummings. The injury was a moderate soft tissue injury to the cervical spine, which resulted from a motor vehicle accident caused by Edwards. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issues before the court were the correct assessment of damages for the injury, specifically considering the nature and extent of the injury, the impact on the plaintiff’s life, and the appropriate compensation for pain and suffering, loss of amenity, and economic loss. The court needed to balance the evidence presented regarding the severity of the injury, the plaintiff’s medical prognosis, and the impact on their quality of life.

The court carefully reviewed the evidence, including medical reports, expert testimonies, and the plaintiff’s own account of the injury's impact. The court found that the plaintiff's injury was significant enough to warrant compensation for pain and suffering and loss of amenity, but the extent of these damages was moderated by the relatively short duration of the injury and the plaintiff's potential for recovery. The court awarded damages for economic loss, pain and suffering, and loss of amenity, but concluded that the total amount should reflect the moderate nature of the injury and the plaintiff's overall recovery prospects.

The final orders of the court included a determination of the total damages payable to Cummings from Edwards, reflecting the court's assessment of the injury’s impact and the plaintiff’s recovery trajectory. The court also provided detailed reasoning for its assessment of each component of the damages, ensuring clarity on the basis for the awarded compensation.

Orders