Davies v Norberry

[2008] NSWDC 112

CITATION:	Davies v Norberry [2008] NSWDC 112
HEARING DATE(S):	19 and 20 June 2008
JUDGMENT DATE:	9 July 2008
JURISDICTION:	Civil
JUDGMENT OF:	Hungerford ADCJ
DECISION:	Verdict for the plaintiff against the defendant in the amount of $622,738.76; parties to be heard on costs before final orders made
CATCHWORDS:	MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT - negligence - pedestrian plaintiff struck by motor vehicle while crossing the road - plaintiff had impaired sight and walking with assistance of a guide dog - defendant admitted liability - claim for contributory negligence abandoned - assessment of damages - costs
LEGISLATION CITED:	Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999, ss 124, 128(3), 131 and Pt 3
CASES CITED:	Harrison v Melhem [2008] NSWCA 67 Roads and Traffic Authority v McGregor [2005] NSWCA 388; (2005) 44 MVR 261
PARTIES:	Bronwyn Davies (Plaintiff) Melanie Norberry (Defendant)
FILE NUMBER(S):	3373 of 2007
COUNSEL:	Mr CP Locke (Plaintiff) Mr DL Ronzani (Defendant)
SOLICITORS:	Goldrick Farrell Mullan (Plaintiff) Curwoods Lawyers (Defendant)

JUDGMENT

Introduction
1 In this action the plaintiff, Bronwyn Davies, has sought damages for personal injury sustained in a motor vehicle accident occurring at about 7.40am on 30 May 2005. The plaintiff, who was blind and partially deaf, was walking across Bridge Street at Rydalmere on her way to work with the assistance of a guide dog when she was struck by a vehicle owned and driven by the defendant, Melanie Norberry. She suffered multiple fractures to her legs and was taken by ambulance to Westmead Hospital and then two days later to The Hills Private Hospital where extensive surgery was performed by Dr John Fox.

2 At the time of the accident the plaintiff was employed by Quantum Technology Pty Limited as a project officer engaged in the development of products for people with disabilities. The position, which had been held for a few years, was on a full-time basis for 40 hours a week and returned the plaintiff a net weekly wage of about $700. It was work of an administrative nature involving considerable use of a personal computer at a desk. Although sight and hearing impaired, the plaintiff fully participated in the workforce and enjoyed working in her chosen field. She went to and from work, sometimes driven by her husband or son or by taxi but usually by herself, with her guide dog and did so by walking and the use of buses and trains – she displayed confidence in doing so and had previously not encountered any difficulties.

3 After discharge from hospital, the plaintiff recovered at home and had the use of a wheelchair and then crutches for up to 18 months. She retuned to work at Quantum Technology in later September 2005 on a gradual basis by working two hours a day for three days each week increasing to 20 hours a week. A feeling of depression in her mood commenced in January 2006 to a noticeable extent. The plaintiff’s guide dog died in February 2008 but she was unable to obtain another dog…