Farrington v SAMPSON

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(Civil)

FARRINGTON v SAMPSON

[2013] SADC 47

Judgment of His Honour Judge Chivell

18 April 2013

DAMAGES - MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT - REMOTENESS AND CAUSATION - PRE-ACCIDENT CONDITION OF PLAINTIFF

Plaintiff involved in a motor vehicle collision in 2005 caused by negligence of the defendant – plaintiff alleged neck and sternal injuries and aggravation of a pre-existing but asymptomatic degenerative condition in her lower back caused by previous motor vehicle accident and work as a nurse – issues of causation, extent of plaintiff’s injuries and quantum.  Neck and sternal injuries established. No temporal connection between the lower back symptoms and the 2005 collision – no causative link established.  Damages in the sum of $11,585.05 awarded for the neck and sternal injuries.

Civil Liability Act 1936 s 34, s 35, s 52(1), s 52(2) , referred to.
Millbrook v Davies [2004] SADC 66; Purkess v Crittenden (1965) 114 CLR 164; Strong v Woolworths Ltd [2012] HCA 5, considered.

FARRINGTON v SAMPSON
[2013] SADC 47

Introduction
The Plaintiff
Plaintiff’s Pre-Accident Symptoms
The 1998 Accident
Plaintiff’s Injuries from the 2005 Accident
Plaintiff’s Post-Accident Symptoms
The Bali Trip
Onset of Symptoms in 2006
Medical Opinion in Relation to Causation

Dr Gadd
Dr Osti
Dr McCulloch
Dr Jackson

Conclusions

Damages

Non-Economic Loss
Past Economic Loss
Gratuitous Services
Special Damages
Consequential Orders

Introduction

1. This is a claim in negligence for damages arising from injuries suffered by the plaintiff in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 12 August 2005 at the junction of Anzac Highway and Cross Road at Plympton.

2. The plaintiff was driving a vehicle west along Anzac Highway when it collided with a vehicle driven by the defendant which was travelling in the opposite direction.  The defendant had attempted to turn right into Cross Road, and failed to give way to the plaintiff’s vehicle.

3. Liability in negligence has been admitted.

4. The issues for determination are the causation and extent of the plaintiff’s injuries and the quantum of damages, if any, arising from those injuries.

5. In her Second Statement of Claim, the plaintiff asserts that, as a result of the defendant’s negligence, she suffered:

   ·a soft tissue injury to the neck;

   ·a fractured sternum;

   ·an aggravation of a ‘pre-existing but asymptomatic degenerative condition in her lower back’.

6. By her defence, the defendant admits the first two injuries referred to above, and asserts that they have resolved.  As to the third, the defendant:

   ·denies that the pre-existing condition in the plaintiff’s back was asymptomatic;

   ·denies that the condition was aggravated in the collision;

   ·says that any injury, loss or damage suffered by the plaintiff arises from a pre-existing back condition and not from the collision;

   ·says that, in the alternative, if the plaintiff’s back condition was aggravated in the collision, the effects were temporary and have resolved;

   ·contends that, in the further alternative, the plaintiff’s incapacity results from a ‘new and intervening act’, referring to an incident at the plaintiff’s…