Groeneveld v Mount Isa Mines Limited

IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF QUEENSLAND

No. 1562 of 1993

[Groeneveld v. Mount Isa Mines Limited]

BETWEEN:

EDWARD GROENEVELD
  Plaintiff

AND:

MOUNT ISA MINES LIMITED
  (ACN 009 661 447)
  Defendant

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - WHITE J

Judgment delivered 19/06/1996

CATCHWORDS      INCOMPLETE paraplegia - 70% loss of function of whole person - future employment prospects - accommodation needs - housekeeping needs.

Counsel:Mr K Copely QC for the plaintiff

Mr SC Williams Qc for the defendant

Solicitors:CA Sciacca and Associates for the plaintiff

Bowdens for the defendant

Hearing Dates:  28, 29 and 30 May 1996

IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF QUEENSLAND

No. 1562 of 1993

[Groeneveld v. Mount Isa Mines Limited]

BETWEEN:

EDWARD GROENEVELD
  Plaintiff

AND:

MOUNT ISA MINES LIMITED
  (ACN 009 661 447)
  Defendant

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - WHITE J

Judgment delivered 19/06/1996

The plaintiff is a 59 year old separated man who sustained serious personal injury on 9 September 1991 in the course of his employment with the defendant which has resulted in incomplete paraplegia.  The plaintiff was employed as a timber man on the day of his injury and had worked for the plaintiff in various capacities for some 27 years.  Liability has been admitted and the action proceeds to trial on the issue of quantum only.  I mention briefly that at the beginning of the trial Mr S Williams QC for the defendant indicated that he would be seeking to call medical evidence not previously provided to the plaintiff and on an aspect of the plaintiff's health not previously raised in the defence case.  I ruled that since that would be in breach of O.39r.29D(3) and that special reasons pursuant to O.39r.29D(4) had not been shown leave would not be given.  Mr Williams then sought an adjournment which I refused for reasons which I need not repeat here and which are set out in the transcript.  In the course of the trial those issues were, in fact, canvassed in the cross-examination of Dr Vernon Hill.
The Issues
           The major issues in contention are

•when in the future the plaintiff is likely to be reliant upon a wheelchair for mobilisation;

•the level of the plaintiff's needs for domestic assistance, particularly in the future;

•the plaintiff's accommodation requirements;

•whether the plaintiff would have remained in employment as a timber man or similar to age 65 which involves consideration of

•his past history of heavy smoking;

•whether the plaintiff's hypertension is accident related or would have occurred naturally;

•the causation of the plaintiff's diabetes which developed immediately post-accident;

•whether the plaintiff had a pre-existing back condition which would have operated upon his capacity to do heavy work in the future;

•a long-held plan to sail around the world;

•the extent of the plaintiff's future medical treatment including medication which involves consideration of the link between the accident and the plaintiff's hypertension and diabetes;

•the cost of a new motor vehicle once only.

Brief History
           The plaintiff was born in Holland on 12 February 1937 and moved to…