Hansen v Mallia - [1999] WADC 58

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: HANSEN -v- MALLIA [1999] WADC 58

CORAM: O'BRIEN DCJ

HEARD: 10, 11, 12 AUGUST 1999

DELIVERED : 8 SEPTEMBER 1999

FILE NO/S: CIV 1670 of 1998

BETWEEN: ANTHONY MARK HANSEN
Plaintiff
AND
DONNA KAREN MALLIA
Defendant

Catchwords:

Personal injuries - Motor vehicle accident - Soft tissue injury to cervical spine - Nature, extent and consequences of injuries considered - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Motor Vehicle (Third Party Insurance) Act 1943

Result:

Damages awarded

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: Mr T N Cullity
Defendant: Mr J R Brooksby

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: Trewin Norman & Co
Defendant: Greenland Brooksby

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

Andjelic v Marsland (1996) 70 ALJR 435
Coleman v McDougall, unreported; DCt of WA; Library No 4412; 3 May 1995
Fabo v Craig, unreported; DCt of WA; Library No 5023; 12 August 1996
Grubor v Adornetto, unreported; DCt of WA; Library No 5030; 19 August 1996
Southgate v Waterford (1990) NSWLR 427

Case(s) also cited:

Thomas v O'Shea (1989) A Tort Rep 80-251

O'BRIEN DCJ: On 12 June 1996 the plaintiff was a front seat passenger in a car driven by his friend. The car was stationary in Rockingham Road at traffic lights. Another car driven by the defendant drove into the back of it and pushed it forward into the car in front. There was therefore an impact from behind and one in front.
The plaintiff was injured in the accident. Liability has been admitted. The issue in this case is the extent of the plaintiff's injuries and the amount of damages.
The plaintiff was born on 13 July 1960 and was nearly 36 years old at the time of the accident. He is now 39 years old. He said that he has had one other car accident and that was when he was nine years old. On that occasion he received a cut to the chin and blacked out for a time.
The plaintiff testified that after the impact, he checked whether others were injured, secured the vehicle and went home. At the time he felt no bodily injuries. The next morning he said that he awoke in pain with headache and severe neck and shoulder pain. He consulted his general practitioner, Dr Brad Cooper. Thereafter, the plaintiff underwent physiotherapy on numerous occasions, saw an orthopaedic surgeon, radiologist and rehabilitation consultant. He has been treated with medication, heat and massage therapy, undergone a bone scan and undertaken an exercise programme.
The plaintiff claims that he is unfit for work as a result of the injuries received in the accident. He says that his domestic and social activities have been restricted and he continues to suffer pain.

Work History

The plaintiff left school half way through fourth year high school. He joined the Army where he was a truck driver. He was discharged from the Army in 1978 on compassionate grounds due to the illness of his two brothers. In late 1978 or early 1979, the…

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.

Continue reading Hansen v Mallia

Details

AGLC: Hansen v Mallia [1999] WADC 58
Case: [1999] WADC 58
Decision Date: 8 SEPTEMBER 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hansen v Mallia involved a personal injury claim arising from a motor vehicle accident. The plaintiff, Hansen, sought damages for injuries sustained in the collision. The defendant, Mallia, was the driver of the vehicle Hansen was travelling in at the time of the accident. The primary dispute centred around the nature, extent and consequences of the injuries Hansen claimed to have suffered, specifically a soft tissue injury to the cervical spine. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The court was tasked with determining whether Hansen's injuries were as severe as claimed and whether they were directly caused by the accident. The court also had to consider the appropriate level of damages to be awarded. The key legal issue was whether the plaintiff had discharged the onus of proving, on the balance of probabilities, that the injuries were caused by the accident and the extent of the impact those injuries had on Hansen's life.

In examining the evidence, the court emphasised the need for the plaintiff to prove the nature, extent and consequences of the injuries on the balance of probabilities. The court considered medical evidence, expert opinions and the plaintiff's own testimony. Ultimately, the court found that Hansen had established that the injuries were caused by the accident but found the extent of the impact of those injuries on his life to be less severe than claimed. The court concluded that while Hansen had sustained injuries, the consequences of those injuries were not as debilitating as alleged.

The court ordered that the defendant pay Hansen damages for his injuries, taking into account the reduced impact on his life. The amount of damages was determined based on the court's findings regarding the nature and extent of the injuries and their consequences. The specific sum awarded was not detailed in the summary but was reflective of the court's assessment of the evidence presented.

Orders