Hardwick v Jankowski

Case [2019] NSWDC 90


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Hardwick v Jankowski [2019] NSWDC 90
Hearing dates: 20, 21 March 2019
Date of orders: 01 April 2019
Decision date: 01 April 2019
Jurisdiction:Civil
Before: Abadee DCJ
Decision:

Judgment for the plaintiff with the parties to make submissions as to final orders.

Catchwords:

Motor accidents – competing accounts of collision occurring – whether breach of duty of care – whether personal injury caused by acceleration of abnormal back pathology.

  Damages – whether future harm caused be pre-existing injury or defendant’s negligence – whether defendant causes evidentiary onus – future economic loss – future care – future out-of-pocket expenses – whether damages for each claimed head of damage should be discounted by possibility of future harm is caused by pre-existing injury.
Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)
Motor Accident Compensation Act 1999 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Amaca Pty Ltd v Latz [2018] HCA 22
Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd v Cervantes [2012] NSWCA 244
CSR Ltd v Eddy (2005) 226 CLR 1
DC v State of New South Wales [2016] NSWCA 198
Graham v Baker (1961) 106 CLR 340
IAG t/as NRMA Insurance Ltd v Helou [2008] NSWCA 240
Malec v JC Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638
Miller v Galderisi [2009] NSWCA 353
Monaghan Surveyors Pty Ltd v Stratford Glen-Avon Pty Ltd [2012] NSWCA 94
New South Wales v Fahy (2006) Aust Torts Rep 81-865
Penrith City Council v Parks [2004] NSWCA 201
Purkess v Crittenden (1965) 114 CLR 164
Seltsam v Ghaleb [2005] NSWCA 208
State of NSW v Burton (2006) Aust Torts Rep 81-826
Vincent v Woolworths Ltd [2015] NSWSC 435
Watts v Rake (1960) 108 CLR 158
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Thomas Peter Hardwick (Plaintiff)
James Jankowski (Defendant)
Representation:

Counsel:
B Tzatzagos (Plaintiff)
D Hanna (Defendant)

Solicitors:
Brydens Lawyers (Plaintiff)
Moray & Agnew (Defendant)
File Number(s): 2018/52201
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

NATURE OF THE CASE

  1. On 11 January 2017 at about 4:25 PM, the plaintiff, Mr Thomas Hardwick, who at the time was 19 year old apprentice motor mechanic, was driving home from work in a northerly direction along Tivoli Esplanade, in Como in the southern suburbs of Sydney. He was driving a two - door red Toyota Coupe. At about that time, the defendant, Mr James Jankowski, was driving in a southerly direction along Tivoli Esplanade. Mr Jankowski was driving a white Mitsubishi Ute. At the front of the Mitsubishi Ute was a bull bar.

  2. Mr Jankowski had been driving from Tweed Heads. Mr Jankowski’s intended destination was a visit to his sister in Ortona Parade. From his direction, Mr Jankowski had to make a right turn into Ortona Parade, across Tivoli Esplanade.

  3. Mr Hardwick’s car collided with Mr Jankowski’s car, in circumstances that are in dispute. In this proceeding, Mr Hardwick claims damages for personal injury sustained in the accident. He asserts that the collision was the result of Mr Jankowski’s negligence in making a right-hand turn into Ortona Parade from Tivoli Esplanade. In his statement…

Continue reading Hardwick v Jankowski

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Hardwick v Jankowski [2019] NSWDC 90
Case
[2019] NSWDC 90
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hardwick v Jankowski involved a dispute between the plaintiff, a driver, and the defendant, another driver involved in a motor accident. The central issue was whether the defendant breached their duty of care and caused the plaintiff's personal injury, specifically an acceleration of abnormal back pathology. Additionally, the case examined whether the plaintiff's future harm resulted from the pre-existing injury or the defendant's negligence, and whether the defendant bore the evidentiary burden in such circumstances. The plaintiff also sought compensation for future economic loss, future care, and future out-of-pocket expenses, with the contention that damages for each head of damage should be discounted due to the potential future harm caused by the pre-existing injury.

The court considered the conflicting accounts of the accident and assessed the credibility of each party's evidence. It examined the principles of negligence, including the standard of care and causation, and the rules governing the apportionment of damages. The court also delved into the concept of the "eggshell skull" rule and the defendant's evidentiary burden in cases where the plaintiff's injury exacerbated due to a pre-existing condition. Furthermore, the court analysed the plaintiff's claims for future economic loss, future care, and future out-of-pocket expenses, and determined whether these damages should be discounted based on the potential future harm caused by the pre-existing injury.

In its judgment, the court found in favour of the plaintiff, holding that the defendant breached their duty of care by causing the plaintiff's injury. The court also ruled that the defendant bore the evidentiary burden in cases where the plaintiff's injury exacerbated due to a pre-existing condition. Consequently, the plaintiff was entitled to compensation for future economic loss, future care, and future out-of-pocket expenses, with the damages for each head of damage not discounted due to the potential future harm caused by the pre-existing injury. The court ordered that the parties make submissions as to final orders.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgment for the plaintiff with the parties to make submissions as to final orders.

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.