DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Evans v Williams & Anor [2018] QDC 210
PARTIES:
MARIE MIRELA DANIELLE EVANS
(plaintiff)v
SUE WILLIAMS
(first defendant)and
ALLIANZ AUSTRALIA INSURANCE LIMITED
ABN 15 000 122 850
(second defendant)FILE NO/S:
BD 3922/17
DIVISION:
Civil
PROCEEDING:
Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:
Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
19 October 2018
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
4 and 5 October 2018
JUDGE:
Jarro DCJ
ORDER:
Judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $42,364.27.
CATCHWORDS:
DAMAGES – Personal injuries – Quantum – Where the plaintiff was injured in a car accident – Liability admitted – Dispute as the consequence of the injuries caused by the car accident – Whether the plaintiff has suffered or will suffer loss of earnings as a result of the accident caused injuries
COUNSEL:
RA Myers for the plaintiff
RC Morton for the defendants
SOLICITORS:
Shine Lawyers for the plaintiff
McInnes Wilson Lawyers for the defendants
On 24 September 2015 then 51 year old kitchenhand, Ms Marie Evans, was injured in a motor vehicle accident at the intersection of William Berry Drive and Morayfield Road, Caboolture South. As Ms Evans was attempting to turn right at the intersection, the first defendant, who was travelling in the opposite direction and covered by a policy of insurance with the second defendant, failed to give way and collided with the front right hand side of the vehicle being driven by Ms Evans.
Ms Evans claims to have suffered a musculo-ligamentous lumbar spine injury, bilateral hip injuries and a psychiatric injury as a consequence of the motor vehicle accident. The defendants dispute the nature and extent of Ms Evans’ claimed injuries. Liability for the accident has otherwise been admitted.
Ms Evans was born in Mauritius, educated to grade 11 and came to Australia in 1986. She comes from a family of 11 children. Ms Evans has occupied a number of jobs throughout her working life in Mauritius and Australia and it was only when her children (who are now aged 32, 29 and 24) were growing up that she was unable to maintain steady employment. Her youngest child has Asperger’s syndrome. Ms Evans lost her second husband from cancer about 9 years ago.
Following the motor vehicle accident, Ms Evans returned to work the next day. She called in sick the following day because her pain “was getting really bad”.[1] She described pain increasing following the accident and that it had “pretty much remained the same since”. There has been no time following the accident when she had felt “completely free of pain”.[2] She rated her pain as “three out of ten” as a base line, but described experiencing “ten out of ten” pain approximately every fortnight.[3] Despite this level of pain, Ms Evans did not seek medical assistance until some considerable time after the motor vehicle accident and has not sought physiotherapy or chiropractic treatment.[4]
[1]T1-21.46.
[2]T1-35.40.
[3]T1-35.43 – T1-36.5.
[4]T1-41.10 – T1-41.17.
Ms Evans’ first attendance upon a medical practitioner occurred on 4 March…
Continue reading Evans v Williams
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Evans v Williams [2018] QDC 210
- Case
- [2018] QDC 210
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff had suffered or would suffer a loss of earnings as a result of the injuries sustained in the car accident. This question was critical as it directly impacted the quantum of damages Evans was entitled to claim from Williams. The court had to evaluate the medical evidence, expert opinions, and the impact of the injuries on Evans' ability to work and earn income.
In reaching its decision, the court meticulously examined the evidence provided by both parties. It considered medical reports, the plaintiff’s employment history, and expert testimony on the impact of the injuries on the plaintiff’s earning capacity. The court concluded that the plaintiff had indeed suffered a loss of earnings due to the injuries, but this loss was not as extensive as claimed. The court awarded damages reflecting a balanced assessment of the evidence presented.
The final orders of the court were that judgment be entered in favour of the plaintiff, Evans, in the amount of $42,364.27. This sum represented the court’s determination of the appropriate compensation for the injuries sustained by Evans in the car accident.
Orders
Orders of the court
Judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $42,364.27.
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.