There be judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $206,443.44.
The defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs, such costs to be taxed in default of agreement.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE  )
  )  No. SC 507 of 2003
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY  )

BETWEEN:MATTHEW HARRIS
Plaintiff

AND:DANIEL JOHN KNIGHT
Defendant

Judge:  Ryan J
Date:  22 April 2005
Place:  Canberra

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

On 2 May 2001, the plaintiff was the driver of a motor vehicle travelling in a north-westerly direction along King Edward Terrace, Barton in the Australian Capital Territory. At the same time, the defendant was driving a taxi (“the taxi”) in a south-easterly direction along Parkes Road West, Barton. At the intersection of Parkes Road West and King Edward Terrace, the taxi entered the intersection in disregard of a “give way” sign and collided with the plaintiff’s vehicle.

A breach of the defendant’s duty to the plaintiff has been admitted and there has been no suggestion of contributory negligence. I am therefore required only to assess damages.

As a result of the collision, the plaintiff’s vehicle was extensively damaged and written off. The plaintiff felt pain in the middle of his lower back. As well, his right knee was sore and there was soreness of the neck just above the shoulder blades. He also suffered an injury to the right hand but there were no cuts or abrasions. He described himself as feeling generally sore and stiff. Coincidentally, his partner, Ms McDonald, had driven in her own vehicle past the scene of the accident but had not noticed that the plaintiff was involved in it. She was contacted by police on her mobile telephone and returned to the scene. The plaintiff overcame her urgings to go to hospital and she took him home where he watched television before retiring early to bed. From her perception, he was a “bit shocked” and “stunned”.

The plaintiff suffered pain and discomfort during the night, mainly in the lower back and neck. On the next day, he attended his regular general practitioner, Dr Cox, and reported his symptoms without specifically adverting to his lower back pain. Dr Cox noted, on examination, that the plaintiff’s neck hurt and he had interscapular pain, bruising and some reduction of flexion of the right neck and right knee. As to his gait,…

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 Harris v Knight

Details

AGLC: Harris v Knight [2005] ACTSC 32
Case: [2005] ACTSC 32
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Matthew Harris, sued the defendant, Daniel John Knight, over injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident on 2 May 2001. The defendant had run a stop sign and collided with the plaintiff’s vehicle. The defendant admitted liability and the plaintiff sought damages. The court assessed the extent of the plaintiff’s injuries, the impact they had had on his life, and awarded damages accordingly. The plaintiff was awarded $206,443.44 in damages. This sum comprised past economic loss ($39,065.68), lost overtime ($10,000.00), interest on past economic loss ($2,000.00), future economic loss ($40,000.00), future out-of-pocket expenses ($20,017.86), general damages ($70,000.00), interest on past component of general damages ($2,000.00), damages under the principle in Fox v Wood ($6,360.00) and damages under the principle in Griffiths v Kerkemeyer ($27,000.00). The court also ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs.

Orders