Dawson v Fryer - [2016] ACTSC 263

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Dawson v Fryer
Citation:	[2016] ACTSC 263
Hearing Dates:	12 April, 4 July 2016
DecisionDate:	16 September 2016
Before:	Burns J
Decision:	See [118]-[119]
Catchwords:	PERSONAL INJURY – motor vehicle accident – liability admitted – assessment of damages – whether past loss of employment opportunity – no evidence to support claim for future economic loss – damages awarded.
Parties:	Richard Dawson (Plaintiff) Kenneth Fryer (First Defendant) Insurance Australia Ltd (Second Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel Mr A Muller (Plaintiff) Ms J Gumbert (First and Second Defendants)
Solicitors Maliganis Edwards Johnson (Plaintiff) Moray & Agnew Lawyers (First and Second Defendants)
File Number:	SC 66 of 2015

BURNS J:

Background

This matter arises from a motor vehicle accident on 23 August 2010. The hearing before me commenced on 12 April 2016 and proceeded as an assessment of damages only. The defendants have admitted liability for the accident and there was no assertion of contributory negligence. On 12 April 2016, a witness for the defendants was unable to appear and the matter was adjourned to 4 July 2016. On that date, the hearing concluded and I reserved my decision.

On 23 August 2010, the plaintiff was driving a vehicle when the first defendant failed to stop at a red light and collided with the plaintiff. The defendants accept that as a result of the accident, the plaintiff sustained the following injuries:

(a)soft tissue injury to the neck;
(b)soft tissue injury to the back;
(c)soft tissue injury to the right shoulder; and
(d)psychological injuries.

The plaintiff prior to the accident

The plaintiff was born in 1974 and was 36 years old at the date of the accident. He was 41 years old when the trial commenced.

He completed year 10 studies at Melrose High in Canberra. He then completed two years of college at Phillip College, Canberra in 1992. During that period he was engaged in some part-time work at Hamill Pools. He also described himself as being heavily involved with Royals Rugby during that period, and also played Rugby Union and Rugby League during high school and college. He continued playing Royals Rugby and as a result of work commitments and training he captained the Nowra first grade Royals for a number of years. The plaintiff testified that he did not suffer any injuries of substance during the course of his rugby career.

After completing college, the plaintiff commenced full-time work with Hamill Pools. He described himself as a general labourer. In 1993, he also commenced his certificate IV in Building. At some point during that year he ceased working full-time at Hamill Pools so he was able to pursue full-time study. He did not complete that course as result of money restraints. In 1994, he then commenced employment at ACT Frames and Roof Trusses.

The plaintiff also described bushwalking and fishing as his key hobbies during that stage, in addition to four-wheel driving. He testified that during the course of these activities he did…

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 Dawson v Fryer

Details

AGLC: Dawson v Fryer [2016] ACTSC 263
Case: [2016] ACTSC 263
Decision Date: 16 September 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Dawson v Fryer involves an action for damages following a motor vehicle accident where liability was admitted. The plaintiff, Dawson, sought compensation for injuries sustained, including claims for past loss of employment opportunity and future economic loss. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Dawson argued that due to the injuries, she lost an opportunity for employment with a significant salary. The defendant, Fryer, contested the claim for future economic loss, arguing there was insufficient evidence to support such a claim.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Dawson was entitled to damages for the past loss of employment opportunity and for future economic loss. The court had to consider the evidence provided regarding the past loss of employment opportunity and whether it was a direct result of the accident. In addition, the court needed to assess the sufficiency of the evidence for future economic loss, given the speculative nature of such claims. The court examined the medical evidence, expert opinions, and the plaintiff's testimony to determine the validity of the claims.

The court found that Dawson had successfully demonstrated a past loss of employment opportunity directly attributable to the injuries sustained in the accident. The evidence showed that she was in a position to secure a job that was lost due to the accident, and the court accepted this as a compensable loss. However, regarding the future economic loss, the court held that there was insufficient evidence to substantiate such a claim. The speculative nature of future earnings and the lack of concrete evidence meant that the court could not award damages for future economic loss. Consequently, the court awarded Dawson damages for the past loss of employment opportunity but declined to award any damages for future economic loss.

The court ordered that Dawson be compensated for the past loss of employment opportunity, as detailed in the judgment. No damages were awarded for future economic loss due to insufficient evidence. The specific amounts awarded and any other orders made are outlined in the judgment at paragraphs [118] and [119].

Orders

Orders of the court

See [118]-[119]

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.