Edwards v Nominal Defendant - [2006] QSC 83

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Edwards v Nominal Defendant [2006] QSC 083

PARTIES:

MELINDA LEE EDWARDS
(plaintiff)
v
NOMINAL DEFENDANT
(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BS 9049 of 2002

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

28 April 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

20-24 March 2006

JUDGE:

Muir J

ORDER:

1.   The defendant to pay the plaintiff the sum of $87,000, being one half of $174,000, the amount at which damages are assessed, including interest.

2.   The defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding to be assessed on the standard basis up to and including 13 August 2004.

3.   The plaintiff to pay the defendant’s costs from 13 August 2004, to be assessed on the standard basis including reserved costs, if any.

4.   Direction that the defendant may set off against the judgment sum the amount recoverable by it from the plaintiff under the order for costs in its favour.

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – ROAD ACCIDENT CASES – ACTIONS FOR NEGLIGENCE – APPORTIONMENT OF DAMAGES – GENERALLY – where 15 year old plaintiff injured by vehicle – where vehicle uninsured – where extent of driver’s duty of care disputed – where plaintiff sustained head injuries – where extent and effect of injuries disputed – whether plaintiff contributed to damage – whether plaintiff’s injuries caused past and future economic loss including loss of income

Law Reform Act 1995 (Qld), s 7

Fink v Fink (1946) 74 CLR 127
Naylor v Yorkshire Electricity Board (1968) AC 529
Smith v Topp & Anor [2003] QCA 397
State of NSW v Moss (2000) 54 NSWLR 536
Wynbergen v Hoyts Corporation Pty Ltd (1997) 72 ALJR 65

COUNSEL:

J W Lee for the plaintiff
R B Dickson for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Keith Scott & Associates for the plaintiff
Walsh Halligan Douglas for the defendant

Introduction

The plaintiff was 15 years old, in grade 10 at Springwood High School when, on 22 December 1995 at about 8.30 in the evening, she was injured in a motor vehicle accident. The driver of the motor vehicle, a Suzuki Swift, was one Gregory Pain. He was aged 18 and worked at the Springwood Coles supermarket with the plaintiff and her elder sister.

Mr Pain was an unlicensed driver and his vehicle was uninsured. The plaintiff claims, against the Nominal Defendant, damages for breach of duty. She alleges that her injuries were caused by Mr Pain’s negligent driving. The Nominal Defendant alleges that the plaintiff was the cause of her own misfortune or, alternatively, that she contributed to her injuries by climbing, uninvited, onto the bonnet of Mr Pain’s car.

The plaintiff’s account of the accident and surrounding circumstances

The plaintiff’s version of the events leading up to the accident was as follows. By prior arrangement, Mr Pain picked the plaintiff up at her home at Stirling Street, Rochedale, and drove her to the home of her friend Diana Grimes in Argonaut Street, Slacks Creek, to attend a Christmas…

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 Nominal Defendant

Details

AGLC: Edwards v Nominal Defendant [2006] QSC 83
Case: [2006] QSC 83
Decision Date: 28 April 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Edwards v Nominal Defendant, the plaintiff, a fifteen-year-old boy, sought compensation for injuries sustained in a road accident. The defendant, an uninsured driver, was found liable for the accident. The primary dispute centred on the extent of the driver's duty of care, the severity and impact of the plaintiff's head injuries, and whether the plaintiff had contributed to the damages. Additionally, it was contested whether the injuries had caused past and future economic losses, including loss of income.

The court was tasked with determining the extent of the defendant's duty of care towards the plaintiff, assessing the severity and impact of the injuries, and apportioning the damages. It also needed to decide whether the plaintiff had contributed to the injuries and if the injuries had resulted in economic losses. The court considered expert medical evidence, the nature of the injuries, and the extent of any contribution by the plaintiff to the damages.

The court concluded that the defendant was liable for half of the assessed damages, amounting to $87,000. The court found that the plaintiff's injuries were significant and had resulted in both past and future economic losses. The court also determined that the plaintiff did not contribute to the injuries, and the defendant could set off costs against the judgment sum. The court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff $87,000 in damages and to cover the plaintiff's costs up to a specified date. The plaintiff was ordered to cover the defendant's costs from that date.

The final orders directed the defendant to pay the plaintiff $87,000, including interest, and to cover the plaintiff's costs up to and including 13 August 2004. The plaintiff was to cover the defendant's costs from that date, with the defendant allowed to set off any recoverable costs against the judgment sum.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The defendant to pay the plaintiff the sum of $87,000, being one half of $174,000, the amount at which damages are assessed, including interest.

2. The defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding to be assessed on the standard basis up to and including 13 August 2004.

3. The plaintiff to pay the defendant’s costs from 13 August 2004, to be assessed on the standard basis including reserved costs, if any.

4. Direction that the defendant may set off against the judgment sum the amount recoverable by it from the plaintiff under the order for costs in its favour.

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.

CITATION:	Edwards v Nominal Defendant [2006] QSC 083
PARTIES:	MELINDA LEE EDWARDS (plaintiff) v NOMINAL DEFENDANT (defendant)
FILE NO/S:	BS 9049 of 2002
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	28 April 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	20-24 March 2006
JUDGE:	Muir J
ORDER:	1. The defendant to pay the plaintiff the sum of $87,000, being one half of $174,000, the amount at which damages are assessed, including interest. 2. The defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding to be assessed on the standard basis up to and including 13 August 2004. 3. The plaintiff to pay the defendant’s costs from 13 August 2004, to be assessed on the standard basis including reserved costs, if any. 4. Direction that the defendant may set off against the judgment sum the amount recoverable by it from the plaintiff under the order for costs in its favour.
CATCHWORDS:	TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – ROAD ACCIDENT CASES – ACTIONS FOR NEGLIGENCE – APPORTIONMENT OF DAMAGES – GENERALLY – where 15 year old plaintiff injured by vehicle – where vehicle uninsured – where extent of driver’s duty of care disputed – where plaintiff sustained head injuries – where extent and effect of injuries disputed – whether plaintiff contributed to damage – whether plaintiff’s injuries caused past and future economic loss including loss of income Law Reform Act 1995 (Qld), s 7 Fink v Fink (1946) 74 CLR 127 Naylor v Yorkshire Electricity Board (1968) AC 529 Smith v Topp & Anor [2003] QCA 397 State of NSW v Moss (2000) 54 NSWLR 536 Wynbergen v Hoyts Corporation Pty Ltd (1997) 72 ALJR 65
COUNSEL:	J W Lee for the plaintiff R B Dickson for the defendant
SOLICITORS:	Keith Scott & Associates for the plaintiff Walsh Halligan Douglas for the defendant