Del Pino v Broadhurst - [2003] WADC 268

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: DEL PINO -v- BROADHURST [2003] WADC 268

CORAM: HH JACKSON DCJ

HEARD: 28-31 JULY 2003

DELIVERED : 2 DECEMBER 2003

FILE NO/S: CIV 1058 of 2001

BETWEEN: ANDRES JONATHON DEL PINO
Plaintiff
AND
ANDREW FREDERICK BROADHURST
Defendant

Catchwords:

Negligence - Motor vehicle collision - Liability admitted - Assessment of damages

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Damages assessed in the sum of $130,150

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: Mr B G Bradley
Defendant: Mr J R Brooksby

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: Vertannes Georgiou
Defendant: Greenland Brooksby

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

Hendrie v Rusli [2000] WASCA 249
Nyssen v Foy [2000] WADC 210
Wylde v 'Arriaza, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 970359; 23 July 1997

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

HH JACKSON DCJ: The plaintiff was born on 9 November 1960 in the Canary Islands. On 30 August 1998, he was involved in a head‑on motor vehicle collision at Gidgegannup.
In the collision, the plaintiff and his wife were trapped in the front seat of the vehicle for an hour or more until they could be freed. The vehicle caught fire and the plaintiff feared for himself, his wife and their children. He was taken to hospital by ambulance. His injuries were numerous. Photographs of the vehicle after their release are Exhibit 1.
The defendant admits liability. The matter came on before me for assessment of damages.

Plaintiff's pre‑accident background

The plaintiff came to Australia as a teenager with his family. After learning English and working as a cleaner, he was employed as a trades assistant by Transfield (as it is now named) in Osborne Park in 1981. It seems that over time, the firm has changed names, merged with other firms and been re‑organised internally. In addition, various witnesses used different names from those used by others for the same sections. Notwithstanding all that, the general position is fairly clear. He later married and had four children. His work as a trades assistant involved cleaning and spray painting heavy equipment. After two years, he moved to the manufacturing section as a coil shaper and was later promoted to a leading hand position and then as a supervisor in about 1987. He was no longer involved in heavy manual work, but more in technical and design areas.
In 1991, at the age of 30 or 31, he applied for and obtained a four‑year apprenticeship as an electrical fitter with Transfield. This involved two years working in the manufacturing section and two years in the winding and fitting sections. During the first three years he also studied at TAFE, becoming apprentice of the year.
Although he is a small man and some of the winding section work is heavy manual work, he coped without difficulty.
After the completion of his apprenticeship, he qualified as an electrical fitter with an "A" grade licence. He was placed in the traction and motor section, working on motors for railways, in early‑1995.
In 1996, the plaintiff purchased a…

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 Del Pino v Broadhurst

Details

AGLC: Del Pino v Broadhurst [2003] WADC 268
Case: [2003] WADC 268
Decision Date: 2 DECEMBER 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Del Pino v Broadhurst involved a motor vehicle collision between the plaintiff, Del Pino, and the defendant, Broadhurst. Both parties admitted liability, and the matter was referred to the court solely for the assessment of damages. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate compensation for the plaintiff's injuries and losses resulting from the collision.

The legal issues before the court were primarily centred around the assessment of damages for the plaintiff's personal injuries, including both general and special damages. The court had to consider the nature and extent of the plaintiff's injuries, the impact on his quality of life, and any associated costs. Both parties presented evidence and arguments regarding the appropriate amount of compensation, focusing on the severity and duration of the injuries and the effect on the plaintiff's ability to work and enjoy life.

In delivering the judgment, the court carefully examined the evidence provided by both parties. It considered medical reports, expert opinions, and the plaintiff's testimony regarding his injuries and their impact on his life. The court also took into account the defendant's admission of liability, which influenced the assessment of damages. Ultimately, the court found that the plaintiff was entitled to compensation for his injuries and losses, and it awarded him an amount reflecting the totality of his damages. The court's decision provided clarity and closure to the matter, ensuring that the plaintiff received appropriate recognition and compensation for the harm suffered.

Orders