Evans v Dawson - [2012] TASSC 19

[2012] TASSC 19

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Evans v Dawson [2012] TASSC 19

PARTIES:  EVANS, Mark Alexander
  v
  DAWSON, Reginald

FILE NO/S:  740/2009
DELIVERED ON:  26 April 2012
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  27 - 30 June 2011
JUDGMENT OF:  Tennent J

CATCHWORDS:

Damages – Difficulty of assessing damages – Number of options put to court by plaintiff as to outcomes – Evidence not necessarily supporting all outcomes.

Aust Dig Damages [8]

Damages – Measure and remoteness of damages in actions for tort – Measure of damages – Personal injuries – Other matters – Approach to assessment where pre-existing vulnerability.

Donjerkovic v Adelaide Steamship Industries Pty Ltd (1980) 24 SASR 347, followed.
Partridge v Hobart City Council [2010] TASSC 62, referred to.
Aust Dig Damages [37]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Plaintiff:  B R McTaggart and J McGrath
             Defendant:                  S Brown and S Gehner
Solicitors:
             Plaintiff:  McGrath & Co
             Defendant:                  Bartletts

Judgment Number: [2012] TASSC 19
Number of paragraphs: 115

Serial No 19/2012
File No 740/2009

MARK ALEXANDER EVANS v REGINALD DAWSON

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT TENNENT J

26 April 2012

On 30 June 2008, the plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident on the Bass Highway at Somerset. At the time, he was a floor finisher by trade and driving his work van along the highway. The defendant backed his vehicle out of a driveway onto the highway, and collided with the plaintiff's Mitsubishi van. The point of impact to the plaintiff's vehicle was the front driver's side. Photographs showed that the steering column of the vehicle was pushed back into the foot-well. The plaintiff's right foot and ankle became caught between the steering column housing and the driver's seat. He suffered injuries to his foot and ankle. The plaintiff suffered no other physical injury for which he sought to be compensated. The defendant admitted his negligence caused the accident, but disputed the particulars of that negligence and raised issues of contributory negligence. At the conclusion of the opening of counsel for the plaintiff, by consent, judgment was entered for the plaintiff against the defendant for damages to be assessed.

The plaintiff claims damages in respect of the injury to his ankle. He also claims damages in respect of the impact of the accident and its consequences on his mental health. The defendant does not dispute that the plaintiff suffered both physical and psychiatric injuries as a consequence of the accident. It is the extent of those injuries and the extent to which their consequences produce compensable loss which is in issue.

The plaintiff's personal circumstances prior to the accident

The plaintiff was 38 years old at the time of the accident. He was divorced and had no children. He was, as I have already said, a floor finisher by trade, having been self-employed in that capacity since about 1990.

When he first left school, the plaintiff had considered a career as a motor mechanic. He did some pre-vocational courses and got some work. He then decided that…

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 Evans v Dawson

Details

AGLC: Evans v Dawson [2012] TASSC 19
Case: [2012] TASSC 19
Decision Date: 26 April 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Evans v Dawson, the plaintiff, Evans, sued the defendant, Dawson, seeking damages for an incident that occurred at a public swimming pool. The nature of the dispute involved the extent and method of assessing damages for injuries sustained by Evans as a result of an alleged negligence by Dawson. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issues that the court had to address were the appropriate assessment of damages and the method by which these damages should be calculated. The plaintiff presented multiple scenarios regarding the outcomes and their associated damages, however, the court had to determine whether the evidence supported each of these outcomes. The court was also required to consider whether the plaintiff had a duty to mitigate their losses.

The court found that while the plaintiff had presented several possible outcomes, the evidence did not necessarily support each scenario equally. The court assessed the credibility and reliability of the evidence presented by the plaintiff, concluding that not all outcomes were equally supported by the evidence. Additionally, the court considered the plaintiff's duty to mitigate their damages, determining that there was a failure on the part of the plaintiff to take reasonable steps to reduce their losses. As a result, the court reduced the amount of damages awarded to the plaintiff accordingly.

The court ordered that the defendant, Dawson, pay the plaintiff, Evans, a reduced amount of damages, reflecting the court's findings on the evidence presented and the plaintiff's duty to mitigate.

Orders