Hobbs v Wapshott - [2005] QSC 359

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Hobbs v Wapshott & Anor [2005] QSC 359

PARTIES:

DEBBIE LOUISE HOBBS
(plaintiff)
v
RAIFE BRIAN WAPSHOTT
(first defendant)
RACQ INSURANCE LIMITED (ACN 009 704 152) (FORMERLY KNOWN AS RACQ-AMP GENERAL INSURANCE LIMITED [ACN 009 704 152])
(second defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BS10991 of 2004

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Trial

DELIVERED ON:

8 December 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

6-7 September 2005

JUDGE:

Mullins J

ORDER:

Judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant in the sum of $126,670.70

CATCHWORDS:

DAMAGES - MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES AND ACTIONS FOR TORT – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – METHOD OF ASSESSMENT – GENERALLY – the plaintiff was 29 years old when injured – assessment of general damages where whole person impairment was between 10% and 15% due to cervical and thoraco-lumbar injuries and where depression and anxiety suffered for a short period – where injuries resulted in some physical restriction on the plaintiff’s capacity to work which manifested itself in making the plaintiff careful in choice of employment and otherwise vulnerable on the open market – where there was not a sufficient past earnings history to support a purely mathematical calculation of loss of future earning capacity – how global assessment for loss of future earning capacity should be made where the loss was more than nominal

Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994

Ball v Monaghan [2002] QDC 124
Calvert v Mayne Nickless Limited [2004] QSC 449
Campbell v Jones [2003] 1 Qd R 630
Hopkins v WorkCover Queensland [2003] QSC 257
Walker v Durham [2003] QCA 531

COUNSEL:

B F Charrington for the plaintiff
K S Howe for the defendants

SOLICITORS:

McKays for the plaintiff
Quinlan Miller & Treston for the defendants

MULLINS J: The plaintiff was 29 years old when she was injured in a motor vehicle accident on 20 December 2001 for which liability is admitted by the defendants. The issue at trial was the quantum of damages appropriate to the plaintiff’s injuries.

Treatment

The plaintiff’s car was written off in the accident. Although the plaintiff recalls that she immediately suffered from an aching arm, she refused to go to hospital and went home. She then felt pain in her neck and back and headache. The plaintiff had experienced no problem with back and neck pain prior to the accident. She consulted her general medical practitioner the day after the accident and was prescribed pain killers and anti-inflammatory medication. In the weeks and months after the accident, the plaintiff continued to suffer pain in her neck which she described as stiffness and headaches and pain in her back which she described as “a very severe ache” or “a dull ache”. In January 2002 the plaintiff commenced physiotherapy treatment and underwent about 32 sessions but found that gave only limited relief. Activity would aggravate the back pain and that would occur on average 3 or 4 occasions per week in the first year after the accident. Aggravations of the neck pain and headaches…

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 Hobbs v Wapshott

Details

AGLC: Hobbs v Wapshott [2005] QSC 359
Case: [2005] QSC 359
Decision Date: 8 December 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Hobbs v Wapshott, the plaintiff, who was 29 years old at the time of injury, sought damages for personal injuries sustained due to cervical and thoraco-lumbar injuries. The injuries resulted in a whole person impairment between 10% and 15% and caused the plaintiff to suffer from depression and anxiety, albeit for a brief period. The plaintiff also experienced some physical restrictions on their capacity to work, which affected their employment choices and made them more vulnerable in the job market. The court had to assess the general damages, considering the lack of a sufficient past earnings history to support a purely mathematical calculation of the loss of future earning capacity. The court was tasked with determining how to make a global assessment for the loss of future earning capacity where the loss was more than nominal.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were the method of assessing general damages in the context of the plaintiff's injuries, and how to appropriately evaluate the loss of future earning capacity given the circumstances. The court had to consider the extent of the impairment, the impact on the plaintiff's employment capacity, and the appropriate way to quantify the loss of future earning capacity where a mathematical calculation was not feasible. The court needed to balance the plaintiff's age, the degree of impairment, the impact on their ability to work, and the short-term nature of the depression and anxiety in determining the appropriate amount of damages.

The court concluded that the assessment of general damages should take into account the whole person impairment, the physical restrictions on the plaintiff's capacity to work, and the vulnerability in the job market. The court found that a global assessment of the loss of future earning capacity was appropriate, considering the plaintiff's age and the degree of impairment. The court determined that the plaintiff was entitled to damages of $126,670.70, reflecting the whole person impairment, the impact on the plaintiff's employment capacity, and the short-term nature of the depression and anxiety. The court found in favour of the plaintiff and awarded the specified amount of damages.

The final orders of the court were that judgment be entered for the plaintiff against the second defendant in the sum of $126,670.70. This amount reflected the appropriate compensation for the plaintiff's injuries, taking into account the whole person impairment, the impact on their capacity to work, and the short-term nature of the depression and anxiety. The court's decision provided a clear method for assessing general damages in similar cases involving personal injuries with physical restrictions on employment capacity and a degree of whole person impairment.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant in the sum of $126,670.70

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.

CITATION:	Hobbs v Wapshott & Anor [2005] QSC 359
PARTIES:	DEBBIE LOUISE HOBBS (plaintiff) v RAIFE BRIAN WAPSHOTT (first defendant) RACQ INSURANCE LIMITED (ACN 009 704 152) (FORMERLY KNOWN AS RACQ-AMP GENERAL INSURANCE LIMITED [ACN 009 704 152]) (second defendant)
FILE NO/S:	BS10991 of 2004
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Trial
DELIVERED ON:	8 December 2005
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	6-7 September 2005
JUDGE:	Mullins J
ORDER:	Judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant in the sum of $126,670.70
CATCHWORDS:	DAMAGES - MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES AND ACTIONS FOR TORT – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – METHOD OF ASSESSMENT – GENERALLY – the plaintiff was 29 years old when injured – assessment of general damages where whole person impairment was between 10% and 15% due to cervical and thoraco-lumbar injuries and where depression and anxiety suffered for a short period – where injuries resulted in some physical restriction on the plaintiff’s capacity to work which manifested itself in making the plaintiff careful in choice of employment and otherwise vulnerable on the open market – where there was not a sufficient past earnings history to support a purely mathematical calculation of loss of future earning capacity – how global assessment for loss of future earning capacity should be made where the loss was more than nominal Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 Ball v Monaghan [2002] QDC 124 Calvert v Mayne Nickless Limited [2004] QSC 449 Campbell v Jones [2003] 1 Qd R 630 Hopkins v WorkCover Queensland [2003] QSC 257 Walker v Durham [2003] QCA 531
COUNSEL:	B F Charrington for the plaintiff K S Howe for the defendants
SOLICITORS:	McKays for the plaintiff Quinlan Miller & Treston for the defendants