Ferraloro v Ahlfeld - [2004] WADC 35

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: FERRALORO -v- AHLFELD [2004] WADC 35

CORAM: GROVES DCJ

HEARD: 15-17 SEPTEMBER 2003

DELIVERED : 5 MARCH 2004

FILE NO/S: CIV 457 of 2002

BETWEEN: VINCENT MICHAEL FERRALORO
Plaintiff
AND
JOHN AHLFELD
Defendant

Catchwords:

Damages - Assessment - Motor vehicle accident - Personal injuries - Cervical strain of mild to moderate severity - Whether knee pain a pre-existing condition - 41 year old restaurant manager - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Motor Vehicle (Third Party Insurance) Amendment Act 1994, s 3C

Result:

Damages of $32,397.96 awarded

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: Mr J G Staude
Defendant: Mr J R Brooksby

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: Chan Galic
Defendant: Greenland Brooksby

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

EMI (Australia) Ltd v Bes [1970] 2 NSWR 238
Ferraloro v Boston, unreported; DCt of WA; Library No 1430; 3 February 1986
Hendrie v Rusli [2000] WASCA 249
Ramsay v Watson (1961) 108 CLR 642
Southgate v Waterford (1990) 21 NSWLR 427
St George Club Ltd v Hines (1962) 35 ALJR 106
Wylde v 'Arriaza, unreported FCt SCt of WA; Library No 970359; 23 July 1997

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

GROVES DCJ: On 19 December 1996 Vincent Michael Ferraloro was the driver of a 1991 Ford Falcon EA Sedan and was stationary at traffic lights in Loftus Street, West Perth, at the intersection with Cambridge Street. Whilst waiting for the traffic lights to change a motor vehicle driven by John Ahlfeld, collided into the rear of Mr Ferraloro's vehicle. The accident was caused by the negligence of Mr Ahlfeld. Liability is admitted. Quantum of damages is in issue.
Mr Ferraloro was wearing a seatbelt. The impact caused him to be propelled forward and then back in his seat. He claimed that his left knee impacted with the hand brake below the dashboard to the left side of the steering wheel. The force of the impact caused a rear deck mat to be thrown forward into the front seat area. His immediate feeling was one of shock. His vehicle suffered damage to the rear bumper which was left hanging off. When he went to move the vehicle he was unable to engage the gears. He later learned that the impact had caused damage to the chassis requiring its re‑alignment. Damage to the front of Mr Ahlfeld's vehicle was extensive even though he claimed to have been travelling slowly at impact. The tow bar on Mr Ferraloro's car had gone through his front grill and into the radiator. His car was a write‑off. Both vehicles had to be towed away. I conclude, given the extent of the damage to both vehicles that the impact was reasonably severe.

The plaintiff's injuries

The plaintiff claims to have sustained the following injuries:
(a)Cervical spine sprain injury productive of pain stiffness and discomfort in the neck region with pain and stiffness in both trapezius muscles.
(b)Occipital and frontal headaches associated with the cervical spine sprain injury.
(c)Thoracic spine sprain injury productive of…

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 Ferraloro v Ahlfeld

Details

AGLC: Ferraloro v Ahlfeld [2004] WADC 35
Case: [2004] WADC 35
Decision Date: 5 MARCH 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Ferraloro v Ahlfeld was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The plaintiff, Ferraloro, was a restaurant manager who suffered a motor vehicle accident. He sought compensation from the defendant, Ahlfeld, for personal injuries sustained during the accident. The injuries included cervical strain of mild to moderate severity and knee pain. The dispute primarily revolved around whether the knee pain was a pre-existing condition exacerbated by the accident or if it was a result of the accident itself. The court was tasked with determining the extent of the injuries attributable to the accident and assessing the appropriate damages.

The legal issues before the court were whether the knee pain experienced by Ferraloro was a pre-existing condition that was merely aggravated by the accident, or if it was a new injury caused by the accident. Additionally, the court had to determine the appropriate compensation for the cervical strain and the knee pain, considering the totality of the circumstances and the medical evidence provided. The court also had to consider whether any contributory negligence on the part of Ferraloro should reduce the damages awarded.

In its judgment, the court found that the knee pain was indeed a pre-existing condition that was exacerbated by the accident. The court relied on the medical evidence presented, which indicated that the knee pain had a history dating back to a previous injury. The court held that while the accident did contribute to the worsening of the knee pain, it did not cause the underlying condition. The court assessed the damages for the cervical strain and the exacerbation of the knee pain, taking into account Ferraloro's age, occupation, and the impact on his daily activities. The court awarded damages reflecting the severity and impact of the injuries sustained in the accident.

The court ordered that Ahlfeld pay Ferraloro a sum of money for the damages suffered due to the motor vehicle accident. The amount was determined based on the severity of the cervical strain and the exacerbation of the knee pain, along with other relevant factors. The court did not find any contributory negligence on the part of Ferraloro that would have warranted a reduction in the damages.

Orders