Davies v Grgic - [2006] ACTSC 14

JENNIFER LOUISE DAVIS v SOPHIE GRGIC
[2006] ACTSC 14 (6 March 2006)

DAMAGES – Personal injury – motor vehicle accident – soft tissue injury

Vulin v Cox [2005] ACTCA 22

Harris v Knight [2005] ACTSC 32

Napper v Abell [2005] ACTSC 64

Dennis v Australian Capital Territory [2005] ACTSC 118

Griffiths v Kerkemeyer (1977) 139 CLR 161
Dennis v Australian Capital Territory [2005] ACTSC 118
Smith v Canberra Labor Club [2005] ACTSC 121

No. SC 267 of 2004

Judge: Marshall J
Supreme Court of the ACT
Date: 6 March 2006

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE       )
  )          No. SC 267 of 2004
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )

BETWEEN: JENNIFER LOUISE DAVIS
Plaintiff

AND: SOPHIE GRGIC
Defendant

ORDER

Judge:  Marshall J
Date:  6 March 2006
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

There be judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $155,137.66.
The parties file and serve written submissions on the question of costs within 14 days.
There be liberty to either party to apply on not less than 48 hours written notice to the other party.

On 3 April 2003 the plaintiff, Ms Davis suffered injuries as a consequence of a motor vehicle collision, which occurred in Braddon in the Australian Capital Territory.

The defendant admits that she breached her duty of care to Ms Davis. There is also no issue concerning contributory negligence. Consequently I am only required to assess the damages which should be awarded to Ms Davis.

Ms Davis

Ms Davis was born on 29 July 1970. At the time of the accident she was 32 years old. She was employed as a bookkeeper by a firm of solicitors. She worked full time, five days per week. She gave birth to her first child in November 2001. At the time of the collision Ms Davis was expecting her second child. She gave birth to her second child in September 2003.

Ms Davis lives at Yass, about a one hour driving journey away from Canberra. Her husband is a bobcat driver who works long and unpredictable hours.

The injuries

The collision occurred when Ms Davis was on her way to work. Her car was stationary in a line of traffic when the defendant’s car ran into it from behind. Ms Davis sat in her vehicle for a short time after the collision. She then alighted from the vehicle, exchanged details with the defendant and checked her own vehicle for damage. The collision shook Ms Davis but, as she was only a short distance from her work, she drove on to work.

Immediately after the collision, Ms Davis felt pain at the base of her neck on the right side. Within a couple of hours the pain increased and by then she had developed right side lower back pain as well. The lower back pain radiated down her legs as far as her knees, via her buttocks. Over the subsequent two days her symptoms steadily increased.

The medical reports

Two days after the collision, Ms Davis attended Dr Burn…

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 Davies v Grgic

Details

AGLC: Davies v Grgic [2006] ACTSC 14
Case: [2006] ACTSC 14
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jennifer Louise Davis commenced proceedings against Sophie Grgic seeking damages for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The defendant admitted liability, and the only issue before the court was the assessment of damages for the plaintiff's injuries. The plaintiff contended that the appropriate sum for general damages was between $45,000 and $50,000, citing several cases for guidance. The defendant submitted that a lower figure of $20,000 to $25,000 was appropriate. The court found that the plaintiff's injuries had significantly impacted her enjoyment of life, and a figure of $45,000 was reasonable, apportioned equally between the past and the future. The court also awarded damages for past and future out-of-pocket expenses, past wage loss, loss of superannuation, a buffer for future wage loss, future loss of superannuation, and domestic assistance under Griffiths v Kerkemeyer. The total amount awarded to the plaintiff was $155,137.66.

The Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory awarded the plaintiff, Jennifer Louise Davis, damages of $155,137.66 for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident caused by the defendant, Sophie Grgic. The defendant admitted liability, and the only issue before the court was the assessment of damages. The court found that the plaintiff's injuries had significantly impacted her enjoyment of life and awarded general damages of $45,000, apportioned equally between the past and the future. The court also awarded damages for past and future out-of-pocket expenses, past wage loss, loss of superannuation, a buffer for future wage loss, future loss of superannuation, and domestic assistance under Griffiths v Kerkemeyer. The total amount awarded to the plaintiff was $155,137.66. The court ordered the parties to file and serve written submissions on the question of costs within 14 days and granted liberty to either party to apply for further orders on not less than 48 hours' written notice to the other party.

Orders