DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Gorlick v Behan & Anor [2016] QDC 357
PARTIES:
GLYNIS JOYE GORLICK
(Plaintiff)v
TAMMY BEHAN
(First Defendant)And
AAI LIMITED (ABN 48 05 297 807) TRADING AS SUNCORP INSURANCE
(Second Defendant)FILE NO/S:
No 198 of 2015
DIVISION:
Civil
PROCEEDING:
Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Townsville
DELIVERED ON:
22 December 2016
DELIVERED AT:
HEARING DATE:
Townsville
18 to 20 May 2016.
JUDGE:
Durward SC DCJ
ORDERS:
1. Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $95,470.20.
2. The second defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs.
CATCHWORDS:
LEGISLATION:
CASES:
TORTS – PERSONAL INJURIES – NEGLIGENCE – CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE – road accident – where vehicle driven by defendant is a garbage truck – where plaintiff is a pedestrian – where facts in dispute – where liability in issue – where plaintiff suffered injuries caused by the accident – whether plaintiff contributorily negligent.
TORTS – PERSONAL INJURIES – DAMAGES – QUANTUM – LOSS & DAMAGE – ECONOMIC LOSS - plaintiff suffered injuries caused by the accident – where extent of injuries in dispute – where plaintiff had existing health and medical conditions – where damages in issue – where quantum in issue – where general damages assessed pursuant to Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) – ISV assessment – past economic loss – future economic loss – special damages – where plaintiff continued to work after the accident – where plaintiff intends to continue working.
Sections 9, 23, and 55 Civil Liability Act 2003; Shedules 4 and 7 Civil Liability Regulation 2003; Section 10(1) Law Reform Act 1995.
Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40; Anikan v Sierra [2004] HCA 64; Jonesv Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298; Manley v Alexander (2005) 80 ALJR 413; Green v Hanson Construction Materials Pty Ltd [2007] QCA 260; Podrebersek v Australian Iron & Steel Pty Ltd (1985) 59 ALJR 492; Chandley v Roberts [2005] VSCA 273; Pennington v Norris (1956) 96 CLR 10; McDonald v FAI Insurance Co Ltd [1995] QCA 436; Malec v JC Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638; Ballesteros v Chidlow & Anor [2006] QCA 323; Nicholls v Curtis & Anor [2010] QCA 303.
COUNSEL:
Ms V Keegan for the Plaintiff.
Mr R Green for the First and Second Defendants.SOLICITORS:
Shine Lawyers for the Plaintiff.
Jensen McConaghy for the First and Second Defendants.
[1] The first defendant is an employee of the Townsville City Council and was the driver of a garbage truck. The second defendant is a licensed insurer pursuant to the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 and liable to indemnify the first defendant in respect of any judgment made against the first defendant.
[2] In this proceeding the plaintiff seeks damages for personal injuries and other loss and damage, arising from an incident near 6 Koro Court, Kelso in Townsville, on 28 October, 2013, said to been caused by the negligence of the first defendant, together…
Continue reading Gorlick v Behan
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Gorlick v Behan [2016] QDC 357
- Case
- [2016] QDC 357
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court meticulously examined the evidence and conflicting accounts of the incident to establish liability. It found that the defendant was indeed negligent in operating the vehicle, leading to the collision. However, the court also determined that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent, as he failed to adequately observe his surroundings while walking. This finding impacted the assessment of damages. The court applied statutory guidelines and precedents to assess both general and special damages, taking into account the plaintiff's existing health conditions and future economic prospects.
The court awarded the plaintiff a total of $95,470.20 in damages, after reducing the amount by 25% due to the plaintiff's contributory negligence. The assessment included general damages for pain and suffering, past economic loss, and special damages for out-of-pocket expenses. The court also ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of the action.
The final orders of the court were that the plaintiff receive judgment in the sum of $95,470.20 and that the defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs. This decision reflects a balanced approach to apportioning liability and damages in a complex personal injury case.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $95,470.20.
2. The second defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs.
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.