Glossop v MATTACKS - [2001] WADC 25

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: GLOSSOP -v- MATTACKS [2001] WADC 25

CORAM: COMMISSIONER GREAVES

HEARD: 20 & 21 DECEMBER 2000

DELIVERED : 16 FEBRUARY 2001

FILE NO/S: CIV 578 of 1999

BETWEEN: GLENICE ANNE GLOSSOP
Plaintiff
AND
JOHN ARTHUR MATTACKS
Defendant

Catchwords:

Damages - Personal injuries - 47 year old bank teller - Severe pelvic fracture - 25 per cent of most extreme case $56,250 - Future loss of earning capacity $41,974.00 - Total award ~~$152,924.71~~ $156,094.79

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Judgment for plaintiff

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: Mr B G Bradley
Defendant: Mr A J Power

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: Moss Bradley
Defendant: McAuliffe Williams & Partners

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

Giorginis v Kastrati (1988) 49 SASR 371
Jongen v CSR Ltd & Anor (1992) A Tort Rep 81-192

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

COMMISSIONER GREAVES: On 9 September 1996 at about 6.00 am the plaintiff was out on her morning walk with her dog along the verge of Casuarina Road. There was an 'S' bend in the road ahead. She could see a truck coming towards her. She sensed danger and moved right across to the right as far as she could from the road. Then she saw the truck ahead rolling and twisting as it was coming towards her. The truck was rolling over. She has no recollection of what happened next but she woke up trapped beneath the truck. She was completely disorientated. She thought she was trapped in her own bed. She could not move. She became aware of being trapped in sand. She was practically buried in sand and the sand was covering her face. Her entire body was trapped beneath the truck apart from her feet. There was diesel dripping onto her head and she was panicking that there might be an explosion.
After she had been dug out from under the truck, she was in extreme pain. There was generalised pain but the most severe was around the pelvis. The plaintiff sustained multiple fractures of her ribs on the lower left side, fracture of the radial styloid of the left hand, lacerations, bruising and soft tissue injuries. She also suffered a severe pelvic fracture and bilateral fractures of the superior and inferior pubic rami.
The plaintiff was conveyed from the scene of the collision to Rockingham/Kwinana District Hospital by ambulance for emergency treatment. She was then transferred to Fremantle Hospital where she was admitted to the intensive care unit under the orthopaedic surgeon, Mr Jeffries. The plaintiff had a Denham pin inserted to the left tibia and traction was applied. A below elbow backslab plaster was applied to the plaintiff's left wrist. On 16 September 1996, the plaintiff required further surgery and underwent an open reduction and internal fixation of the fractured pelvis by the insertion of three internal fixation plates and associated screws. The plaintiff's pelvis, left hip and left leg were immobilised in traction from 9 September 1996 until 24 September 1996. On 27 September 1996,…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Glossop v MATTACKS and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2001] WADC 25
Decision Date: 16 FEBRUARY 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Glossop v Mattacks was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The plaintiff, Glossop, sought damages for personal injuries sustained in an incident involving a forklift operated by the defendant, Mattacks. Glossop, a 47-year-old bank teller, suffered a severe pelvic fracture as a result of the incident. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate compensation for Glossop's injuries, including both general damages for pain and suffering and special damages for future loss of earning capacity.

The primary legal issues before the court were the quantification of general damages and the assessment of future loss of earning capacity. The court had to decide on the appropriate multiplier for the general damages, considering the severity of Glossop's injuries and the impact on his life. Additionally, the court needed to evaluate Glossop's future earning capacity, taking into account his age, occupation, and the extent of his injuries.

The court determined that Glossop's injuries were 25 per cent of the most extreme case, warranting an award of $56,250 in general damages. Considering the severity and impact of the injuries, the court found that the multiplier of 3.5 was appropriate. The court also assessed Glossop's future loss of earning capacity at $41,974.00, based on his age and the nature of his employment. Summing these amounts, the total award was $152,924.71, which was later adjusted to $156,094.79.

The court ordered Mattacks to pay Glossop the total sum of $156,094.79, comprising both general and special damages for his injuries.

Orders