Legal Research
Cases
Edwards v Butler

Edwards v Butler

Case [2004] SADC 190 22 December 2004

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil)
EDWARDS v BUTLER
Judgment of His Honour Judge Robertson
22 December 2004
NEGLIGENCE - PROOF OF NEGLIGENCE - ONUS OF PROOF
DAMAGES - MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT - MEASURE OF DAMAGES - PERSONAL INJURIES - METHOD OF ASSESSMENT
Plaintiff consulted Defendant for a remedial massage – Plaintiff injured in course of the massage – held that the Defendant performed a manipulation to the Plaintiff’s neck – Defendant did not have qualifications or training to perform manipulation – Defendant liable for breach of contract and negligence.
Plaintiff suffered injury to the cervical disc at level C6/7 – nerve compression – surgery to decompress nerve and fusion of vertebrae – plaintiff later had further surgery to decompress nerve at C5/6 – held that not proved that injury at C5/6 caused by Defendant’s negligence – Plaintiff continuing to suffer chronic pain – held to arise from organic injuries – psychological factors present – held to be also suffering from a pain disorder – on-going pain from tortious injury at C6/7 and non-tortious in injury at C5/6 – Defendant failed to discharge onus of disentangling two sources of pain – diminution in earning capacity – damages for injuries.
Health and Other Services (Compensation) Act (Cwlth) 1995; Health Insurance Act (Cwlth) 1973, referred to.
Sheldon v Sun Alliance Australia Pty Ltd (1990) 53 SASR 97; Grivas v Brooks (1997) 69 SASR 532; Graham v Baker (1961) 106 CLR 340; Mann v Ellbourne (1974) 8 SASR 298; Husher v Husher (1999) 197 CLR 138; Murray v Dawson (1996) 24 MVR 294; Dessent v Commonwealth (1977) 13 ALR 437; Carson v Knott 1999 SASC 71; Todorovic v Waller (1981) 150 CLR 402; Wynn v NSW Insurance Ministerial Corporation (1995) 184 CLR 485; Griffiths v Kerkemeyer (1977) 139 CLR 161; Weinert v Schmidt (2003) 84 SASR 307; Gervan v Fenton (1992) 175 CLR 327; Sharman v Evans (1976-77) 138 CLR 563; Beasley v Marshall (No. 1) (1988) 40 SASR 544; State Government Insurance Commission v Hitchcock Unreported, 11 March 1997 BC 9700650, applied.
Mister Figgins Pty Ltd v Centrepoint Freeholds Pty Ltd (1981) 36 ALR 23 ; Joblin v Associated Diaries Limited (1982) AC 794; Terrington v Beck (1982) 100 LSJS 265; Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw (1956) AC 613; Savini v Australian Terazzo & Concrete Co Pty Ltd (1959) VR 811; Purkess v Crittenden (1965) 114 CLR 164; Arthur Robinson Grafton Pty Ltd v Carter (1968) 122 CLR 649; Malec v JC Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638; Wade v Allsopp (1976) 10 ALR 353; Redding v Lee (1982) 151 CLR 117; Assessment of Damages (4th Ed) Professor Luntz, considered.

EDWARDS v BUTLER
[2004] SADC 190
Nature of the Plaintiff’s Claim

The Plaintiff’s claim is for personal injuries alleged to have been suffered by her during the course of a massage by the Defendant…

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 Edwards v Butler

Details

AGLC: Edwards v Butler [2004] SADC 190
Case: [2004] SADC 190
Decision Date: 22 December 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Edwards v Butler, the plaintiff sought compensation from the defendant, a remedial massage practitioner, after suffering injuries during a massage session. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant performed a neck manipulation for which they lacked the necessary qualifications, resulting in cervical disc injury, nerve compression, and subsequent surgeries. The court had to determine whether the defendant was liable for breach of contract and negligence, and if so, the extent of damages attributable to the defendant's actions.

The primary legal issues were whether the defendant breached their professional duty by performing an unauthorised manipulation and whether this breach caused the plaintiff's injuries. The court also needed to assess the measure and remoteness of the damages, distinguishing between injuries caused by the tortious act and those arising from other sources, including pre-existing conditions. A significant aspect was determining the proportion of the plaintiff's chronic pain and diminished earning capacity attributable to the defendant's negligence.

The court found the defendant liable for breach of contract and negligence as they performed a neck manipulation without proper qualifications. However, it was not proven that the injury at C5/6 was caused by the defendant’s actions. The plaintiff's ongoing chronic pain resulted from both the tortious injury at C6/7 and a non-tortious injury at C5/6. The defendant failed to demonstrate that the pain from the latter was separable from the former. The court assessed the damages for the injuries, considering both the direct impact of the tortious injury and the plaintiff's pre-existing conditions.

The court ordered the defendant to compensate the plaintiff for the damages attributable to the tortious injury, considering the diminution in earning capacity and ongoing pain. The specific amount of damages awarded was not detailed in the summary provided.

Orders