Re: JANELLE MAREE HODGES And: BRENDA FROST Re: JAMES KEITH FROST And: JANELLE MAREE HODGES Nos. ACT G89 and G90 of 1983 53 ALR 373 Damages
COURT
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION Gallop J. Morling J. Kirby J.
CATCHWORDS
Damages - personal injuries - assessment - whiplash injury resulting in disablement - services provided to wife gratuitously by the husband - damages recoverable in respect of gratuitous services - measure of damages - application and limitations of the decision in Griffiths v Kerkemeyer.
Practice - Federal Court - damages for personal injuries - principles governing interference by appellate court with award of trial judge - whether damages unreasonable or error of fact or law.
HEARING
CANBERRA
#DATE 12:4:1984
ORDER
(1) In the appeal Janelle Maree Hodges and Brenda Frost (No ACT G 89 of 1983), appeal dismissed with costs.
(2) In the appeal James Keith Frost and Janelle Maree Hodges (No ACT G 90 of 1983), appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.
JUDGE1
I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment prepared by Kirby J. I agree with his reasons and the orders he proposes.
JUDGE2
I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment prepared by Kirby J. I agree with his reasons and the orders he proposes.
JUDGE3
On 8 June 1980 Mrs Brenda Frost ('the wife') suffered injuries in a motor car accident. She was travelling in a car driven by James Keith Frost ('the husband'). Remarkably, the husband escaped personal injuries. The wife's injuries were occasioned by the negligence of Janelle Maree Hodges. Separate proceedings were commenced in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory on behalf both of the wife and the husband. The wife claimed damages for personal injuries and consequential losses. The husband claimed damages for the deprivation of his wife's 'comfort, society and fellowship' and for his performance of household duties consequent upon the wife's 'greatly reduced capacity'.
The two proceedings were tried before Kelly J on 21 October 1983. Liability was admitted in each case by Mrs Hodges. As Mrs Hodges is the Appellant in the wife's case and the Respondent in the husband's appeal it is convenient to refer to her as the defendant. His Honour proceeded to an assessment of damages. There was little significant dispute on the evidence. He gave a verdict of $63 900 to the wife and $12 500 to the husband, in each case with costs. The defendant appeals to this Court from the verdict in favour of the wife, claiming, in essence that the sum awarded was excessive and based upon an incorrect application of the law. As a defensive measure, the husband then appealed against the adequacy of the verdict in his case. However, it was made plain on the appeal that the husband's appeal would not be pressed if the Court were disposed to dismiss the appeal against the wife's verdict.
The case raises an important question…
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 Hodges v Frost
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Hodges, Janelle Maree v Frost, Brenda Frost, James Keith v Hodes, Janelle Maree [1984] FCA 99 (53 ALR 373)
Case
[1984] FCA 99
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the Federal Court of Australia, Hodges v Frost involved a dispute over damages for personal injuries, specifically a whiplash injury sustained by Janelle Hodges that resulted in disablement. The case centred on the amount of damages recoverable for services provided gratuitously by her husband, James Frost, to her as a result of the injuries. The legal issues included determining the extent to which damages could be awarded for such services and the appropriate measure of damages, particularly in light of the decision in Griffiths v Kerkemeyer.
The court examined the principles established in Griffiths v Kerkemeyer to assess the value of the gratuitous services provided by Mr Frost to Ms Hodges. It considered the nature and extent of the services, the relationship between the parties, and the impact of the injury on their lives. The court held that while damages could be awarded for the loss of services, the value of those services should be assessed based on what they would have cost if they had been provided by a third party, rather than at their actual cost to the injured party. The court also considered the impact of the injury on the family unit and the overall loss of amenity resulting from the injury.
In dismissing the appeals, the court concluded that the trial judge had correctly applied the principles from Griffiths v Kerkemeyer in assessing the damages. The court upheld the trial judge's decision on the valuation of the gratuitous services and the overall measure of damages. The appeals were dismissed, with costs awarded in one instance and no order as to costs in the other.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) In the appeal Janelle Maree Hodges and Brenda Frost (No ACT G 89 of 1983), appeal dismissed with costs.
(2) In the appeal James Keith Frost and Janelle Maree Hodges (No ACT G 90 of 1983), appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.