Damages - Personal injuries - General damages for non-pecuniary loss - Proportion of "a most extreme case" - Award for gratuitous services pre-trial and for the future
Scott v Liddicoat, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; 25 May 1982
PIDGEON J: I would allow the appeal. I do so for the reasons to be published by Murray J. I also agree with the orders proposed.
WALLWORK J: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Murray J and to the order proposed by his Honour.
MURRAY J: On 1 May 1997 the appellant was a pedestrian on a road when she was struck by the respondent driving a motor vehicle. She was an elderly lady who was born on 24 November 1918. She was then occasionally employed as a French teacher. She suffered a number of potentially serious injuries, a closed head injury, fractured ribs on the right side, a bilateral haemothorax, a compound fracture of the right leg, bruising of the spleen and kidney, a fracture of a spinal process, a tear of her right shoulder muscles, various soft tissue injuries and anxiety.
She sued for damages in negligence. Liability was admitted by the respondent. The matter was tried in the District Court as an assessment of damages. Judgment was given on 28 May 1999. The appellant was then aged 80 years. The trial Judge made an award of damages in the sum of $133,586.10. He awarded the costs of the action to the plaintiff to 25 March 1999, a date just before the trial took place, and thereafter the costs of the action were awarded to the defendant, no doubt for the usual reason.
The award included a fair measure of agreement as to special damages, past and future economic loss and future medical expenses. The award otherwise included an assessment of $42,400…
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 Hendrie v Rusli
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Hendrie v Rusli [2000] WASCA 249
Case
[2000] WASCA 249
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the Federal Court of Australia, the matter of Hendrie v Rusli was heard and determined. The plaintiff, Hendrie, sought damages for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident caused by the defendant, Rusli. The dispute centred around the quantum of general damages for non-pecuniary loss and the inclusion of future gratuitous services in the award. The court was required to decide whether the plaintiff was entitled to additional compensation for the proportion of the loss being "a most extreme case," and if so, how much. Additionally, the court had to determine if the plaintiff should be compensated for gratuitous services provided both pre-trial and for the future.
The legal issues involved interpreting the extent to which the plaintiff's condition qualified as "a most extreme case" and whether the award should reflect the severity of her injuries. The court also considered the appropriateness of including gratuitous services, both past and future, in the damages assessment. The plaintiff argued that the award should account for the full scope of her domestic needs, including hairdressing assistance. The defendant contested the inclusion of these services, arguing that they were adequately covered by the existing award.
The court reasoned that hairdressing assistance should indeed be included in the award for gratuitous services, as it falls within the scope of personal domestic services that should be compensated. The court found that the plaintiff's injuries warranted the award being classified as "a most extreme case," and thus, the award should reflect this severity. The court calculated the interest on the past gratuitous services and adjusted the award for future professional and gratuitous services. After accounting for an over-allowance in the original award, the total increase in damages amounted to $38,071, raising the total award to $171,657.10. This comprehensive approach ensured that the plaintiff received a fair and just compensation for her injuries and the associated domestic support needs.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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
WALLWORK J
In the result I think that assistance with hairdressing is the sort of personal domestic service which would be included in the award for gratuitous services which I have already proposed. I too would not make any additional award in relation to hairdressing costs.Conclusion In the result therefore, for past gratuitous services, interest on those services, the amendment of the award in relation to future professional services and for future gratuitous services, I would award sums of $8,938, $495, $14,225 and $17,800 and from the total of $41,458, I would, of course, deduct the $3,387 allowed erroneously in respect of future professional services, making a total increase in the judgment amount of $38,071 over the original award of $133,586.10.