Hodges v Hicks

Case [2025] WADC 8

JURISDICTION     :   DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH

CITATION:   HODGES -v- HICKS [2025] WADC 8

CORAM:   PALMER DCJ

HEARD:   18-22, 25-26, 28 NOVEMBER & 16 DECEMBER 2024

DELIVERED          :   24 FEBRUARY 2025

FILE NO/S:   CIV 3450 of 2018

BETWEEN:   SUSAN MICHELLE HODGES

Plaintiff

AND

MARILYN EDWINA HICKS

Defendant


Catchwords:

Negligence - Motor vehicle accident - Nature of injuries caused by the accident - Pre-existing injuries - Assessment of damages

Legislation:

Civil Liability Act 2002 (WA)

Result:

Damages assessed

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Ms B E Rogers
Defendant : Mr D R Clyne

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Soul Legal
Defendant : Hall & Wilcox (Perth)

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak [2009] HCA 48; (2009) 239 CLR 420

Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd v Sprod [2012] NSWCA 281

City of Stirling v Tremeer (2006) 32 WAR 155

Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar (2011) 243 CLR 588

East Metropolitan Health Service v Ellis (by his Next Friend Christopher Graham Ellis) [2020] WASCA 147

Ellis (by his Next Friend Christopher Graham Ellis) v East Metropolitan Health Service [2018] WADC 36

Footscray Football Club Ltd (ACN 005 226 595) v Adam Kneale [2024] VSCA 314

Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles [2001] NSWCA 305; (2001) 52 NSWLR 705

Malec v JC Hutton Pty Ltd [1990] HCA 20; (1990) 169 CLR 638

Paric v John Holland (Constructions) Pty Ltd [1985] HCA 58; (1985) 62 ALR 85

Purkess v Crittenden (1965) 114 CLR 164

Seltsam Pty Ltd v Ghaleb [2005] NSWCA 208

Stojceska v Muharemovic [2017] WADC 9

Strong v Woolworths Ltd t/as Big W [2012] HCA 5; (2012) 246 CLR 182

The Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Wagga Wagga v TJ (a pseudonym) [2024] VSCA 262; (2004) 74 VR 612

Van der Velde v Halloran [2011] WASCA 252

Veitch v Connor [2023] WADC 38

Wallace v Kam [2013] HCA 19; (2013) 250 CLR 375

Watts v Rake (1960) 108 CLR 158

Table of Contents

Introduction

The injuries that the plaintiff alleged she sustained in the accident

The plaintiff's health prior to the accident

The medical treatment that the plaintiff received after the accident

Causation

The lay evidence regarding the accident and its effect on the plaintiff

The medical opinion regarding the cause of the plaintiff's knee injury

The plaintiff's case on the cause of the plaintiff's knee injury

The defendant's case on the right knee

The reliability of the plaintiff's evidence

Conclusion: the accident made a material contribution to the plaintiff's knee injury

The medical opinion regarding the cause of the plaintiff's back, neck and shoulder injuries

The plaintiff's case on causation of the plaintiff's neck, right shoulder and back injuries

The defendant's case on the plaintiff's other injuries

Conclusion regarding the plaintiff's neck, right shoulder and back

Non-pecuniary loss

Future medical treatment and travel

Past and future care and assistance

Special damages

Findings about the plaintiff's qualifications, employment history and historical earnings

Lay evidence regarding the plaintiff's economic loss…

Continue reading Hodges v Hicks

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Hodges v Hicks [2025] WADC 8
Case
[2025] WADC 8
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Hodges v Hicks, the plaintiff, Mr Hodges, brought an action against the defendant, Ms Hicks, for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 22 January 2016. The central issue in dispute was the nature and extent of the injuries sustained by Mr Hodges as a result of the accident, particularly in relation to his pre-existing knee conditions. The case was heard and determined by the District Court of Western Australia. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the motor vehicle accident had aggravated Mr Hodges' pre-existing knee conditions or caused new injuries, and if so, to what extent these injuries contributed to his ongoing symptoms and need for treatment. A secondary issue was the appropriate assessment of damages in light of the evidence regarding the plaintiff's injuries and their impact on his life.

The court carefully considered the medical evidence presented by both parties. Dr Campbell, whose report was admitted into evidence, opined that the accident was of low impact and did not aggravate any pre-existing injury or leave Mr Hodges with a lasting injury. In contrast, Associate Professor Hardisty, an orthopaedic surgeon, disagreed with Dr Campbell, asserting that the accident caused injuries to Mr Hodges' knees and accelerated the progression of his right knee osteoarthritis. The court found Associate Professor Hardisty's evidence more persuasive, particularly his explanation that the impact from the accident could have caused an asymptomatic knee to become symptomatic. The court concluded that the accident had indeed caused injuries to Mr Hodges' knees, which aggravated his pre-existing conditions and contributed to his ongoing symptoms. The court awarded damages to Mr Hodges, taking into account the extent of his injuries and their impact on his life.

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

Unfortunately, Dr Campbell had passed away by the time that the trial commenced. A report that she prepared dated 23 August 2016 was admitted into evidence by consent and pursuant to s 79C of the Evidence Act 1906 (WA) (Evidence Act).[138][138] ts 442 - ts 443. Dr Campbell noted that the accident appeared to have been very low impact. Although Dr Campbell accepted that the accident may have caused the plaintiff some temporary discomfort, she did not think that the accident either aggravated any pre‑existing injury, or left the plaintiff with a lasting injury. She thought that the plaintiff's symptoms were likely to relate to patellofemoral degeneration associated with the plaintiff's weight and prior history. Associate Professor Hardisty is an orthopaedic surgeon who reviewed the plaintiff at the request of the plaintiff's solicitors on three occasions, first in June 2017 and then on 8 January 2018 and 18 October 2024. He prepared five reports dated 26 June 2017,[139] 31 May 2018,[140] 10 August 2020,[141] 3 November 2023[142] and 18 October 2024.[143] Associate Professor Hardisty's report dated 31 May 2018 responded to Dr Campbell's report.[139] Exhibit 49.[140] Exhibit 50.[141] Exhibit 52.[142] Exhibit 54.[143] Exhibit 56. Associate Professor Hardisty disagreed with Dr Campbell. He considered that there was 'no doubt' that the plaintiff's knees were injured given the nature of the accident and the appearance of her knee after the accident.[144][144] Exhibit 50. Associate Professor Hardisty accepted that the plaintiff might have been suffering from osteoarthritis in her right knee before the accident. He accepted that the December 2014 CT Arthrogram revealed that the plaintiff was suffering from some chondral (cartilage) degeneration consistent with osteoarthritis at that stage.[145][145] ts 309. See also ts 323 - ts 324. He said, however, that you could not tell from a CT arthrogram whether the plaintiff was symptomatic.[146] He said that you cannot extrapolate clinical symptoms from imaging and that a patient might be asymptomatic despite the fact that an image revealed osteoarthritis. He thought that the plaintiff could plausibly have been asymptomatic with a knee that appeared to be in the condition shown in the December 2014 CT Arthrogram.[147][146] ts 309. See also ts 323 - ts 324.[147] ts 305 - ts 306. Associate Professor Hardisty said that direct blows to the kneecap often cause problems in the kneecap. He said that in the plaintiff's case, the blow was at a slightly oblique angle and it could have caused slide or friction which can result in a cartilage injury. He said that such an impact had the capacity to cause an asymptomatic knee to become symptomatic.[148] He thought that the blow that the plaintiff received to her kneecap in the accident accelerated the progression of the plaintiff's right knee osteoarthritis by making her asymptomatic knee become symptomatic.[149][148] ts 307 - ts 307.[149] ts 311. Associate Professor Hardisty said a patient with symptomatic patellofemoral arthritis would be expected to experience continued swelling and complaints of the knee catching or giving way and would be expected to attend a general practitioner for treatment.[150][150] ts 307.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.