Gorlick v Behan

Case [2016] QDC 357


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

Details
AGLC
Gorlick v Behan [2016] QDC 357
Case
[2016] QDC 357
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Gorlick, sought damages against the defendant, Behan, for injuries sustained in a road accident involving a garbage truck driven by the defendant. The central issue before the court was whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent in causing the accident and, if so, whether this negligence contributed to the extent of the damages awarded. The court also needed to determine the quantum of damages, including economic loss and special damages, given the plaintiff's existing health conditions and his intention to continue working post-accident.

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.