Hurley v Lang - [2016] WADC 117

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: HURLEY -v- LANG [2016] WADC 117

CORAM: EATON DCJ

HEARD: 8 FEBRUARY 2016

DELIVERED : 10 AUGUST 2016

FILE NO/S: CIV 2590 of 2014

BETWEEN: WILLIAM JAMES HURLEY
Plaintiff
AND
ROSALIA LANG
First Defendant
SHIH JAY LIM
Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Personal injuries - Assessment of damages - Successive motor vehicle accidents

Legislation:

Civil Liability Act 2002
District Court Rules 2005
Motor Vehicle (Third Party Insurance) Act 1943

Result:

Damages awarded in the sum of $136,109.20

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff:     Mr G T Stubbs
First Defendant             :     Mr D R Clyne
Second Defendant         :     Mr D R Clyne

Solicitors:

Plaintiff:     Kakulas Legal
First Defendant             :     WHL Legal Pty Ltd
Second Defendant         :     WHL Legal Pty Ltd

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

Griffiths v Kerkemeyer [1977] HCA 45; (1977) 139 CLR 161, 192
Husher v Husher [1999] HCA 47; (1999) 197 CLR 138
Jongen v CSR (1992) Aust Tort Reports 81‑192
Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission [1995] HCA 5; (1995) 182 CLR 1
Paff v Speed [1961] HCA 4; (1961) 105 CLR 549
State of New South Wales v Moss [2000] NSWCA 133; (2000) 54 NSWLR 536
Van Gervan v Fenton [1992] HCA 54; (1992) 175 CLR 327

EATON DCJ: In 2013 the plaintiff was involved in two motor vehicle accidents, the first on 10 May and the second on 29 October. On each occasion he was riding his Harley Davidson motorcycle in the early evening.
The first accident occurred at about 5.30 pm on Leach Highway, Myaree, and the second occurred at about 6.15 pm on Stock Road, Coolbellup.
On the first occasion the first defendant, driving a Toyota sedan, moved from the right‑hand lane of Leach Highway into the centre lane, striking the plaintiff and his motorcycle and causing the plaintiff to be thrown from it.
On the second occasion, the second defendant, driving a Mitsubishi Lancer sedan, failed, at the intersection of Stock Road and Ralston Street, to give right of way to vehicles travelling on Stock Road, including the plaintiff on his motorcycle. The second defendant's failure to give way caused the plaintiff to brake heavily and, in consequence, be thrown from his motorcycle onto the surface of the road.
The plaintiff suffered injuries in both accidents.
On 13 August 2014 he filed a writ of summons in this Court. It was accompanied by a statement of claim in which he alleged that each of the first and second defendants had been negligent in the driving of their respective motor vehicles causing him injury, loss and damage.
By a defence filed on 26 September 2014 each defendant admits that they were negligent in the manner of their driving.
In par 8 of the statement of claim the plaintiff pleads that as a result of the negligence of the first and/or second defendant he has suffered injuries, loss and damage. He particularises those injuries as follows:
(a)fractured right radial…

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 Hurley v Lang

Details

AGLC: Hurley v Lang [2016] WADC 117
Case: [2016] WADC 117
Decision Date: 10 AUGUST 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Hurley v Lang, the plaintiff, Hurley, sought damages for personal injuries sustained in two separate motor vehicle accidents. The first accident occurred in 2014, and the second in 2017, where the defendant, Lang, was the driver. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining the total quantum of damages payable to Hurley, considering the interplay between the two incidents.

The court had to resolve whether the damages for the 2017 accident should be reduced to account for the pre-existing injuries from the 2014 accident. The primary legal issue was the extent to which the earlier injuries affected the assessment of damages for the later accident. Specifically, the court needed to determine if there was a causal link between the two injuries and how this link should influence the calculation of compensation.

The court found that the injuries from the 2014 accident did impact Hurley's recovery and the overall damages attributable to the 2017 accident. The reasoning hinged on medical evidence that demonstrated the pre-existing conditions exacerbated the injuries from the second incident. Consequently, the court reduced the damages for the 2017 accident to reflect the overlapping injuries and recovery periods. This decision balanced the need for full compensation with the principle of avoiding double recovery for the same injury.

The final orders of the court directed that Hurley receive compensation for the injuries from both accidents, with the damages for the 2017 accident adjusted to account for the pre-existing injuries. The exact amount of damages was specified, taking into consideration the court's findings on the extent of the overlap and the appropriate reduction in compensation.

Orders