Evans v Williams

Case [2018] QDC 210


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

  1. 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.        

  1. 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. 

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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

Details
AGLC
Evans v Williams [2018] QDC 210
Case
[2018] QDC 210
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Evans v Williams involved a dispute over damages for personal injuries sustained in a car accident. The plaintiff, Evans, claimed against the defendant, Williams, who admitted liability for the accident. The crux of the case was the extent and consequence of the injuries Evans suffered, particularly whether they resulted in a loss of earnings. The case was heard and determined in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

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.