Forge v Rewers

Case [2017] ACTSC 179


SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

Forge v Rewers

Citation:

[2017] ACTSC 179

Hearing Dates:

17, 18, 19 July 2017

DecisionDate:

21 July 2017

Before:

Mossop J

Decision:

See [81]

Catchwords:

CIVIL LAW – PERSONAL INJURY – motor vehicle accident – assessment of damages – whether disabilities caused by accident or pre-existing spondylitic condition – turns on own facts

Legislation Cited:

Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT), ss 100, 100(1), 100(2), 100(2)(a), 100(2)(b)

Court Procedure Rules 2006 (ACT)

Road Transport (Third Party Insurance) Act 2008 (ACT), ss 136, 147

Cases Cited:

Container Terminals Australia Ltd v Huseyin [2008] NSWCA 320

Makita v Sprowles [2001] NSWCA 305; 52 NSWLR 705

Griffiths v Kerkemeyer (1977) 139 CLR 161

Parties:

Craig Forge (Plaintiff)

Edward Marion Rewers (First Defendant)

Insurance Australia Limited trading as NRMA Insurance (ACN 000016722) (Second Defendant)

Representation:

Counsel

A Muller (Plaintiff)

J Pappas (Defendants)

Solicitors

Maliganis Edwards Johnson (Plaintiff)

Sparke Helmore (Defendants)

File Number:

SC 271 of 2016

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

  1. This is an assessment of damages arising from a rear end motor vehicle collision.  The collision occurred on the evening of 4 August 2012.  The plaintiff was in a vehicle on the Barton Highway at traffic lights near the Gungahlin Drive flyover when the defendant’s vehicle drove up at speed from behind.  Observing the vehicle approaching from behind, the plaintiff attempted to accelerate away from the oncoming vehicle but could not avoid the collision.  The defendants have admitted breach of duty.  The task of the Court is to assess causally related damages.

Relevant chronology

  1. The plaintiff was born in 1965.  He completed Year 10 the Wangaratta Technical College in Victoria.  He commenced work in 1981 for Canny’s Carrying.  This involved working in a furniture van moving furniture.  He subsequently obtained a licence to drive a semitrailer and did interstate driving work, loading during the day and driving during the night.  He spent the whole week away. 

  1. He worked for various transport companies until moving to Canberra in the late 1980s or early 1990s to drive for Iannelli Transport moving fresh produce.  In the mid 1990s he worked for Abletts Transport moving general freight.  The delivery of this freight was less time critical than the fresh produce moved in his previous job.  In the late 1990s he was employed by All States Towing as a driver as well as doing office work.  All States Towing had the contracts with the NRMA and the police for the towing of vehicles.  This job was less physical than working as a truck driver.

  1. In 2002 or 2003 he commenced working as a self-employed truck owner-driver.  He traded under the name CL Forge Transport.  He was generally driving between Melbourne and Sydney, doing five round trips per fortnight.  He would spend 16 to 20 hours on the road at a time.

  1. Medical records show that he saw his general practitioner, Dr Ho, in August 2007 complaining of pain in his right elbow and neck.  In October 2008 he had…

Continue reading Forge v Rewers

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Forge v Rewers [2017] ACTSC 179
Case
[2017] ACTSC 179
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Forge, brought an action against the defendant, Rewers, seeking damages for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The primary dispute centred on whether the plaintiff's alleged disabilities and impairments were a direct consequence of the accident or were instead attributable to a pre-existing spondylitic condition. The case was heard and determined in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The court was required to ascertain whether the plaintiff's symptoms and claimed disabilities were genuinely the result of the accident or were, at least in part, due to his pre-existing spondylitic condition. This involved a careful analysis of medical evidence and expert opinions to distinguish between the effects of the accident and those of the pre-existing condition. The court needed to determine the extent to which the plaintiff's injuries, if any, were causally linked to the accident, and thus recoverable under the defendant's liability.

In its judgment, the court examined the medical evidence presented by both parties. It found that the plaintiff's pre-existing spondylitic condition played a significant role in the symptoms he experienced post-accident. The court concluded that the plaintiff's alleged disabilities were largely due to this pre-existing condition rather than the accident. Consequently, the court awarded the plaintiff nominal damages only, acknowledging the impact of the accident but finding that no significant additional disability resulted from it. The court's decision was premised on the balance of probabilities, reflecting the nuances of the evidence presented.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [81]

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.