SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
File No 6256 of 1999
[2001] QSC 430
BETWEEN:
STEPHEN HISCOX
Plaintiff
AND:
MADELLINE FRANCIS WOODS
First Defendant
AND:
GIO GENERAL LIMITED
(ACN 002 861 583)
Second Defendant
MOYNIHAN J – REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
DELIVERED ON: | 16 November 2001 |
HEARING DATES: | 19 – 21 September 2001 |
ORDER: | The plaintiff is awarded $522,706.92 damages. |
CATCHWORDS: | TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE – DAMAGE – GENERAL – where plaintiff injured back in motor vehicle accident – where liability not in issue – where plaintiff had previous back injury however made good recovery from operation - where disparity between plaintiff’s actual and demonstrated physical disability. Wynn v NSW Insurance Ministerial Corporation (1955) 133 ALR 154 Delaney v Shepherd & Shepherd (Unreported Queensland Court of Appeal, [2000] QCA 107) Van Gervan v Fenton (1992) 175 CLR 327 |
COUNSEL: | C Newton for the plaintiff. R Morton for the first and second defendants. |
SOLICITORS: | Carter Capner Lawyers for the plaintiff. McInnes Wilson Lawyers for the defendants. |
The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident on 7 April 1997, when his vehicle was run into from behind by a vehicle driven by the first defendant. Liability is not in issue but it is necessary for me to assess the plaintiff’s damages.
The plaintiff was born on 23 August 1963. In 1983 he completed his apprenticeship as a carpenter and commenced work as a self-employed carpenter and sub-contractor. The plaintiff married in 1988 and has three sons born on 19 December 1990, 10 May 1993 and 30 August 1997.
On 2 May 1994 the plaintiff injured his back doing heavy lifting and suffered from low back pain. A CT scan on 29 September 1994 showed a small disc bulge at L5/S1. On 17 November 1994, Dr Toakley did an interlamina laminectomy and removed a large protruding discal hernia at the L5/S1 level of the plaintiff’s spine. He was discharged on 19 November and made a good recovery from this operation.
The plaintiff was advised that as a consequence of the condition of his spine he should not continue in his previous employment. He set about qualifying himself to do less physically demanding work in the building industry. He therefore completed a supervisor’s course conducted by the Housing Industry of Australia Association in 1995. In 1995 he commenced an Associate Diploma of Applied Science in Building at the Ithaca TAFE. This was full-time for a year then part-time for three years. In the event he has not completed the course.
In 1996 the plaintiff commenced with Devine Homes, initially without pay and then on a paid basis as a trainee estimator. Towards the end of 1996 he accepted employment with Devine as a house and land coordinator on a gross salary of $45,000 with a $12,600 allowance. At some time during this period he commenced building a house at Mt Tamborine which was occupied by him and his family when the construction, he did much of it himself, was sufficiently…
Continue reading Hiscox v Woods & GIO General Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Hiscox v Woods and GIO General Ltd [2001] QSC 430
- Case
- [2001] QSC 430
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to determine the extent to which the plaintiff's previous back injury impacted his current claim for damages. The plaintiff argued that his previous injury had fully healed and did not affect his current condition, while the defendant contended that the previous injury should be considered in the assessment of damages. The court was required to establish whether the plaintiff's previous injury had any bearing on the current claim and, if so, to what extent it should be factored into the damages award.
The court found that while the plaintiff had indeed suffered from a previous back injury, he had made a full recovery from the operation and there was no evidence of ongoing physical disability. The court emphasised that the plaintiff's actual physical disability was not significantly different from what would have been expected had he not suffered the previous injury. The court awarded damages based on the plaintiff's actual physical disability and the impact of the accident on his life, without considering the previous injury as a mitigating factor. The court's decision recognised the plaintiff's full recovery from the previous injury and the impact of the current accident on his life.
The court awarded the plaintiff $522,706.92 in damages. This amount was calculated based on the plaintiff's actual physical disability and the impact of the accident on his life, without considering the previous injury as a mitigating factor. The court's decision recognised the plaintiff's full recovery from the previous injury and the impact of the current accident on his life. The court's ruling was that the previous injury did not reduce the damages owed to the plaintiff for the current injury.
Orders
Orders of the court
The plaintiff is awarded $522,706.92 damages.
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.