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, the plaintiff had further surgery to remove the pin from the plaintiff's left leg.
On 16 October 1996, the plaintiff was allowed to mobilise in a wheelchair without weight bearing. On 25 October 1996, she underwent further surgery to relieve a haematoma beneath her left hip. The plaintiff remained in Fremantle Hospital for approximately two months. Her pain was controlled by injections and she required an in-dwelling catheter. She was bedridden and unable to move. She was discharged from hospital on 8 November 1996 using elbow crutches and a wheelchair. By 25 November 1996, the plaintiff had improved and was able to walk with the aid of two walking sticks. By then she had managed to dispense with her wheelchair. Following her discharge from hospital, the plaintiff was heavily dependent upon her family for a period of eight weeks. Thereafter, she managed to resume more and more of her domestic activities. In the months that followed the accident, the plaintiff had frequent nightmares about the accident and flashbacks during the day. She was very nervous travelling in motor vehicles. When having sex with her husband she was tense and anxious and felt closed in when he was on top of her. This situation took her back to where she was trapped beneath the truck. As time went by the nightmares, flashbacks and these feelings of anxiety tended to ease but they remained present to some extent today. She describes her present problems and difficulties at p 13 of her statement, Exhibit 1, as follows:
"(i)Pain and stiffness in the left buttock/hip/groin area which gets worse over the day at work and which leaves me feeling exhausted at the end of the work day.
(ii)I have problems with squatting and crouching and with bending.
(iii)I cannot walk for prolonged distances and I have been forced to abandon my regular long daily walks.
(iv)My capacity to dance is restricted. Although I continue to participate in dancing I have to watch what I do and I obtain less enjoyment from it.
(v)I have had to modify my gardening activities and can now only do lighter type gardening work.
(vi)I have difficulty with heavy household chores mainly vacuuming and mopping. I continue to perform these chores but I tend to do them in isolation, ie on days when I am not particularly busy with anything else.
(vii)Sexual activity with my husband leaves me with increased pain in the pelvic area and I also occasionally continue to experience flashbacks and anxiety over the truck accident when my husband is on top of me.
(viii)I am in real difficulty in coping with my work being on my feet for a large part of the working day and also with the stress associated with disgruntled customers.
(ix)My sleep is disturbed and I often wake at night worrying about work and occasionally thinking about the accident. I then find it difficult to get back to sleep again.
(x)Whereas before the accident I was happy and cheerful I now find myself snapping at family members. I tend to get tearful.
(xi)I still get very anxious when travelling in motor vehicles and particularly when passing by the scene of the accident. When I get anxious I get tense with sweaty palms and I find myself bracing for a crash."
In evidence before me, the plaintiff was asked to describe the pain which she experiences now and she replied:
"It's mainly in my left hip. It's like a vice like feeling and as I become under more tensional pressure or physical tardiness it's like a vice that tightens on my hip and therefore it does become tiring and you can lose more concentration. I just find it exhausting.---It's always there. Its not something which is unbearable, but as the day goes on it can become unbearable.--- I do get pain in my lower left buttocks area. At home or even if I am shopping with a trolley or vacuuming in my front pubic bone its like a twisting sensation that is quite uncomfortable."
The plaintiff said that she has scarring which goes to the top of her left hip and she produced four photographs of the scarring, which became Exhibit 2. The plaintiff said that she no longer feels her more superficial injuries including her left wrist.
She describes the consequences of her pelvic fracture at home and at work at p 8 et seq of her statement, Exhibit 1 as follows:
"I think I resumed work on 21 February 1997 commencing at 15 hours per week. I resumed in my bank telling duties but the bank provided me with a back-up assistant and gave me permission to sit when I was in pain and to just do what I could. For a short period I tried to work my normal hours, ie, 29 hours per week but I couldn't manage this.
Over time I gradually increased my level of activity until I settled in at a regular 19 hours per week, working Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays only and with the benefit of rest days on Tuesdays and Thursdays I could struggle through.
From 12 April 2000 the Bank increased my hours to 20 hours per week (18.5 hours regular and 1.5 hours overtime).
Since 1 June 2000 I have been working 20.75 hours per week. This was at the insistence of the Bank and it has caused me to struggle to keep up these hours since.
The Bank system is such that I have to fit in with their time requirements or move to another branch (if there is a branch with suitable hours).
I have over many months tried different ways of dealing with the pain in my left buttock and hip at work including more use of the chair but I find that whatever I do makes no real difference. In the end it is easier to stand than it is to go on and off the chair and there are also twisting movements to both sides to get forms from the drawers and use the VDU.
It is more practicable to sit when the branch is not busy than during the peak periods when there is a queue of customers to deal with.
Since the accident I do not respond well at all to stress. Before the accident I had no problem with dealing with stress and difficult customers at work. It is now a major problem to me and I find that whenever I get in to stressful situations at work, particularly with demanding or aggressive customers, the pain and stiffness in my left buttock and hip area gets more severe and that then my mind is constantly on the pain.
I find that towards the end of each working day I can barely tolerate the pain. I feel exhausted. The stress in the job does not help and the pain seems to worsen with this stress.
The bank underwent a revamp commencing in January 2000 with the design changes being to encourage the customers to do their own electronic banking with the "meet and greet" policy. The changes at the bank have not however, enabled me to reduce the time I have to spend on my feet. Whilst I can sit at times, this does not relieve the pain that I am in.
Over the years I have been with the bank there have been significant staff cuts and the attitude of the customers has changed. We used to have 8 tellers on the front line but over the last few years this has been reduced to 3 except Fridays when we have 4. The customers frequently express their discontent with the new banking system and they seem to be at times angry and frustrated.
I find that as a teller there is little time to relax or sit back. I am flat out keeping up with the customer demand.
The pain and stiffness is mainly in the left hip and buttock area. I have pain and a feeling of coldness in the left low back/hip region. The pain builds up over the working day and since my hours have been increased from 19 to 21 I am finding it even more difficult to get through, particularly on Fridays. There is not much I can do to ease the pain and stiffness as it builds up at work.
I do not believe that I can continue working the present hours and I am hoping the bank will permit me to drop back a few hours a week. Since the accident there have been times when I have thought of taking early retirement. This is constantly on my mind and is something that I may well do.
Before my accident I was having no difficulty coping with the 29 or 30 hours of work each week and I was enjoying it. Certainly the changes which the bank has introduced in recent years have added to the stress of the position but I see no reason why I could not have handled that but for my injuries.
I am having regular hydrotherapy treatment. I go to hydrotherapy 3 times per week immediately after work. The hydrotherapy sessions commence at 6.30 pm on Monday and Wednesday evenings and on Saturday mornings.
The hydrotherapy centre is at Kwinana, 9 kilometres from my home.
My practice is to drive home after work, prepare my husband's meal and shoot off to the hydrotherapy.
Until recently I was doing the Saturday morning sessions at Thornlie but I can now do them at Kwinana. It costs $4.95 per session.
I find the hydrotherapy treatment to be of real benefit. It enables me to get through my domestic chores and to stay at work.
At home I am managing virtually all my domestic chores. I have difficulty with vacuuming and mopping. These tasks aggravate the left hip pain. My husband is willing to assist with the heavier chores, heavy gardening, etc but that has always been the case. My husband works fairly long hours and is not always available.
Sometimes I develop a limp and it feels as if I am dragging my left leg to some extent. This can occur at the end of a shift at work.
I have quite significant scarring around the left hip area.
Due to the hip and leg pain I no longer participate in regular daily long distance walks. I do take the occasional short walk around the block. I have always enjoyed dancing and I find my injury restricts this but I still attempt to dance. I have altered my activities at home somewhat in that I don't tackle the same heavy gardening work I used to do before because of the left hip pain. As a result I haven't participated in the development of the 5 acre lot as much as I would have liked. I have left this more to Gary. I very much enjoyed gardening activity and I miss this. I no longer attempt to lift bags of fertiliser, push heavy wheelbarrows, do heavy digging or cultivating. My husband purchased a light wheelbarrow for me. I do what I can but I am limited. I also find that with domestic or gardening activities if my pain is provoked I will take a casual session at the hydrotherapy pool to obtain some relief. I find this works and I intend to continue on with hydrotherapy indefinitely.
The only pain killers I take at the moment are the occasional extra strength Panadol which can be purchased over the counter but I have tried to avoid taking pain killers as much as possible."
In cross-examination, the plaintiff agreed she consulted her general practitioner in May 1997 with a view to working the same hours that she was working before the accident. She said she found she could not cope and cut her hours back. She agreed she had tried to push herself to the limit all too quickly. She agreed that since June 1997 she has improved to a certain extent but said she is still not 100 per cent. She agreed that there have been a number of changes in the duties of a bank teller or customer service officer, some of which have not been to her liking. She said that she had not complained to management that she found the changes stressful. She agreed that she spends some of her time sitting at her work station but said that when it is busy, she tends to stand. Generally, there are 10 to 12 people in the queue at her work station while in the quiet times there may be three or four people.
She agreed she told Dr Holme about the stress her work as a teller was causing her and discussed whether she was able to work longer hours. She agreed that he suggested she should give some thought to doing some other kind of job and working longer hours in a less stressful job closer to home. She agreed that she told him that she had reached a stage in her life where she wanted to be comfortable and did not want to have to cope with the longer hours of work with the severity of her injuries and the pain in which she suffers throughout the day. She said she was trying to manage her domestic and working life and that she has got it at a fairly comfortable feel. She accepted that she is at an age at which it is nice to have extra time to herself on Tuesdays and Thursdays but added that it is something she would not have done had it not have been for the accident. She said she was not aware that longer hours were available at the Willetton branch of the Challenge Bank.
The negligence of the defendant is admitted and the claim is one for assessment of damages only. The Court is required to determine general damages for pain and suffering and loss of amenities, past loss of earning capacity, future loss of earning capacity and future loss of superannuation benefits. The plaintiff also makes a claim for future medical, physiotherapy, hydrotherapy and pharmaceutical treatment.
The injuries which the plaintiff suffered in this accident, and primarily the severe pelvic fracture, required hospitalisation for two months. She required a wheelchair for two weeks followed by crutches and the continual assistance of her family over the eight weeks following her discharge. She returned to work on 21 February 1997 some five months after the accident. Her general practitioner, Dr Ron Foo, saw the plaintiff on 17 December 1996 when he found her to be still totally incapacitated. On 24 May 1997 he conducted a comprehensive medical examination of the plaintiff and noted that her left lower limb was obviously shorter than the right, which he considered to be the result of her pelvic fractures. In his report of 27 January 1998, he records that he reviewed the plaintiff on 27 June 1997 after she had resumed duties on a full-time basis on 1 June 1997. She complained of feeling physically exhausted after work, difficulty in kneeling and getting up from kneeling because of lower limb stiffness, heightened sensitivity to cold water, greater difficulty with lifting of heavy objects, inability to run and inability to resume doing step aerobics. He noted the plaintiff had resumed her pre-accident occupation and observed that as she was highly motivated and was endowed with a cheerful, optimistic and positive attitude, he would expect most of her symptoms to resolve with regular exercise and normal daily activity. Exhibit 2 reveals that the plaintiff suffered marked visible scarring to her left hip.
The orthopaedic surgeon, Mr Desmond Williams, first saw the plaintiff on 6 May 1999. In his report of 14 June 1999, he outlines the plaintiff's history and her significant injuries to the pelvis and lumbar spinal area. He expresses the opinion that her problems remain unstable with a continuing need for physical rehabilitation efforts with swimming and exercise schedules. He also says that the plaintiff will be left with significant long-term residual disability problems affecting the spinal and pelvic areas and will have ongoing pain and functional limitations.
Mr Williams saw the plaintiff again on 22 July 1999. In his report of 1 October 1999, Mr Williams expressed the opinion that he found it difficult to assess her disability in terms of the effect of the pelvic fractures on her function which he said will limit long standing and walking activities and there will be general ache and interference with high levels of functional capacity rather than limiting basic capacity. By 10 May 2000, Mr Williams reported in part:
"The feature really to be recognised is that she suffered severe soft tissue injuries as well as the demonstrated fractures with the forceful injury and this was further re-enforced by the draining of the haematoma from her left hip area as part of her management and there is some left leg shortening in follow up.
She remains with persisting symptoms and in her cervical area there is associated headaches and there is pain about the left hip and buttock area and pelvis and she has an inability to stand for long periods and long driving creates stiffness and she has difficulties with heavy lifting. Generally we are seeing here the consequences of quite significant soft tissue injuries as I have outlined associated with the severity of the accident.
I believe her current work schedule is an appropriate work schedule in that she is coping with part-time work activities but I believe if she attempts a full work schedule above 19 hours a week she will find difficulty in coping.
Any increase in work schedules would have to be graduated over a period of 12 months and assessment made of her capacity to cope."
On 15 September 2000, Mr Williams came to express the following opinion:
"Her problems are stabilising with the recognition of residual disability in the pelvic area and it is not an easy assessment in terms of percentage disability as it represents disability in the lower lumbar area and the pelvis and hip areas and it is in the range of 10 to 20 percent expressed as a percentage disability of this complex."

Shortly before the trial, Mr Williams expressed the following opinion in his report of 18 December 2000:
"I believe that one of the issues that arises in this case is that pelvic fractures by their nature are unlike limb fractures where there is clear impediment of function in a single limb that can result from the fracture damage to a joint or to mal-alignment of the fracture, pelvic fracture is not a fracture like a spinal fracture where there is a clear segmental level that is significantly involved and again clear clinical consequences follow from that segmental level involvement.
The pelvic fractures are more diffuse injuries hidden from presentation by the bulk of musculature and soft tissue that surrounds the pelvic areas and therefore it is much more difficult to assess in terms of functional disability and much more difficult in terms of being a source of pain because it is the range of muscles and tendons and ligaments and soft tissues that are associated with the pelvic area and the pelvic fractures that create the chronic and ongoing pain and limitations in function and these factors are not easily demonstrable to the clinical review be a surgeon, occupational physician or a physiotherapist. This more diffuse nature of the pelvic fracture injury and presentation is a fundamental reason why you will have differences of opinion in terms of the functional limitations."
In January 2000, the plaintiff's solicitors referred the plaintiff to a Dr Peter Burvill for a psychiatric opinion primarily in relation to what Dr Burvill described as a difference in opinion between the orthopaedic surgeons Mr Colin Hooker and Mr Desmond Williams and the long-term prognosis regarding her ability to work. Perusal of the reports suggested to Dr Burvill that after the accident the plaintiff had many symptoms of an acute post traumatic stress disorder including frequent dreams of the accident and of related topics, flashbacks of the accident during the day, intrusive thoughts about the accident, certain avoidance phenomena and some anxiety symptoms. He reported that by the time he saw the plaintiff on 19 January 2000 most of the symptoms had subsided. She feels anxious when driving a motor vehicle and during sexual relationships. Dr Burvill reported that Mrs Glossop described herself prior to the accident as being a fairly outgoing person who was bright and bubbly by nature, and one who enjoyed other people's company. She is rather placid by nature and not inclined to be moody or an undue worrier. She has a tendency to turn negative thoughts into positive ones. By nature she is very house proud, and was very frustrated after the accident as she was not able to keep her house clean up to her high standards. Her interests mainly involved walking prior to the accident, gardening on their five acre property and aqua-aerobics. She does not smoke and drinks alcohol very sparingly. At interview, the plaintiff related her history very freely. Dr Burvill expressed the opinion that she does not appear to be depressed, but displayed a certain degree of tension and anxiety, in keeping with the situation he observed that generally she has a very positive attitude towards her various disabilities. She has a tendency to play down the significance of her various problems.
The defendant did not call Mr Colin Hooker although his report of 23 January 1998 is included in Exhibit 10. He appears to accept that the plaintiff's pelvic injury was a serious injury involving multiple fractures and in the end on the evidence before me the only material difference of opinion between the two surgeons seems to be the plaintiff's prognosis. In my opinion, this difference of opinion is resolved in this case on the evidence of the plaintiff herself which in my opinion establishes the facts on which Mr Desmond Williams' opinion depends and establishes the circumstances of the plaintiff which are necessary to translate the medical opinion into findings of fact pertinent to the assessment of damages under the various heads which I have mentioned. See Giorginis v Kastrati (1988) 49 SASR 371 per von Doussa J.
Mr Williams expressed his opinion of the plaintiff's injuries, symptoms and prognosis before me in this way:
"This is a major fracture. Disturbance of the posterior sacroiliac joint area next to the spine, the wing of the sacrum, so coming around the side, it's shattered and through to the front, both rami, which are the pelvic bones in front, were broken. So it's quite unstable and in fact the surgeons operated to stabilise that fracture. So this is a major pelvic fracture.---She is going to get arthritic pain and progressive arthritis in the joint at the back, the sacroiliac joint.---I think we are seeing the beginning of it now.---She will have pain in that area and she will have limited function, because when you walk your weight is taken through your hip and your pelvis through to your spine. So her weight transfer goes through this area of damage.---She will have pain and she will have stiffness and this stiffness will affect the lumbar spine. So it will affect bending forwards and backwards and rotation. It is an area that is underestimated, the pelvis, because it is covered by muscles and it is deep. We all know what a fractured arm looks like when its bent and we know what a fractured leg looks like when it is bent. We don't appreciate the amount of damage and displacement that occurs in the pelvic area because it is covered by muscles and belly and it is deeply covered by tissue. So it is not as obvious to the examining doctor that there's major problems there and its only reviewing the x-ray, particularly the initial x-rays, and seeing the severity of the damage that you understand what is the consequence of this severe pelvic fracture."
Counsel asked Mr Williams whether the degenerative changes will have an impact on her capacity to remain at work and he replied:
"I think it is already having an impact and I sort of see this woman as a genuine patient who is coping at the sort of level that perhaps she will cope with for the medium to longer term. She has got stiffness in the lumbar spine associated with these posterior fractures so she doesn't bend, as I said earlier, and twist easily. So it's not just pain, its stiffness that will be a feature here and that will increase and with stiffness and pain comes poor function.
… it's an essential part of her long term management that she makes a commitment to swimming and exercise schedules. The pull with the non weight bearing exercise – its like greasing and oiling the joint and stretching the soft tissues. It is a necessary part of her long term lifestyle from now on."
In cross-examination, Mr Williams stated that in the usual way he formed his opinion from the information which the plaintiff gave him and his clinical examination.
I accept the evidence of Mr Williams that the plaintiff has made a remarkable recovery from her pelvic injuries, largely through her own efforts and regular exercise. I accept his evidence that to maintain the level of recovery which she has reached, she will need to continue regular exercise. I except his evidence about the severity of the pelvic fracture and its implications for her recovery to date and for the rest of her life. His evidence satisfactorily explains the occurrence of the plaintiff's continuing symptoms. I accept his evidence about the stresses on the plaintiff's pelvic areas which arise from the continuous and repetitive tasks which the plaintiff is required to perform at work, and no doubt elsewhere. I do not accept the evidence of Dr Holme that the plaintiff is fit to work full-time or 29 to 30 hours per week in her employment. From a clinical point of view, that may be so, but it takes no account of the exhaustion which the plaintiff experiences after working 20 hours per week. It takes no account of the consequent likely exhaustion which the plaintiff would be likely to experience if her hours were increased by half or doubled.
In relation to the assessment of damages for pain and suffering and loss of amenities, there was in this case very little difference in the submissions of counsel. The nature of this pelvic fracture, its consequences for the plaintiff until now and the prognosis for the rest of her life lead me to conclude that damages should be assessed as 25 per cent of a most extreme case. Under this head, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to 25 per cent of $225,000 or $56,250.
In relation to past loss of earnings, I find that the plaintiff was totally incapacitated for work between 9 September 1996 and 21 February 1997. Between 22 February 1997 and 16 December 2000, I find the plaintiff would have worked 29 hours per week. In accordance with the plaintiff's amended economic loss schedule, I find that the plaintiff is entitled to an award for past loss of earnings as follows:
(1)9 September 1996 to 21 February 1997
23 weeks at $299 net per week                    $ 6,877.00
(2)22 February 1997 to 30 June 2000
174 weeks at 9.5 hours loss hours per
week x $13.57 less tax   $18,617.90
(3)1 July 2000 to 16 December 2000 net loss    $2,368.00
Total   $27,862.90
The plaintiff is also entitled to interest on past loss of earnings and special damages of $5,500 as agreed. Over 4 years at 4 per cent, I assess that to be $5,338.06.
In relation to the assessment of future loss of earning capacity, I find that the plaintiff's pelvic injuries have been productive of future economic loss. I find that but for the accident the plaintiff would have worked 29 hours per week until age 60. The plaintiff will turn 60 on 12 December 2013. The applicable 6 per cent discount multiplier for 13 years is 475.7. The plaintiff is now working 20.75 hours per week and accordingly her current net loss is $92.88 per week. I calculate her future loss therefore as $92.88 x 475.7 ($44,183) less 5 per cent for general contingencies, being $41,974.00.
In relation to future loss of superannuation benefits, I find the plaintiff has a reduced capacity of at least 8.25 hours per week at $14.53 per hour ($119.87). The plaintiff is therefore entitled to $4,528.66 (8 per cent x $119.87 gross per week x 475.7). That sum is to be reduced by 30 per cent for contingencies in accordance with Jongen v CSR Ltd & Anor (1992) A Tort Rep 81-192). The Plaintiff should be awarded $3,170.08 under this head.
In relation to future medical costs I find the plaintiff is entitled to:
Hydrotherapy three sessions per week x $5.00 x 475.7 $7,135.50
Travel to hydrotherapy18 kilometres x 3 visits x
30 cents per kilometre x 475.7   $7,706.34
Future medical expenses global allowance                 $2,000.00
$16,841.84
Less 5 per cent for contingencies   $842.09
Total$15,999.75

Conclusion

The plaintiff is therefore entitled to the following award for pecuniary and non‑pecuniary loss:
Pain and suffering  $56,250.00
Past loss of earnings           $27,862.90
Special damages as agreed     $5,500.00
$33,362.90
Interest at 4 per cent             $5,338.06     $38,700.96
Future loss of earning capacity  $41,974.00
Future loss of superannuation  $3,170.08
Future medical expenses  $15,999.75
$~~152,924.71~~
$156,094.79
I will enter judgment accordingly.