DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Ingersole v Nancarrow & Anor [2016] QDC 315
PARTIES:
BENJAMIN JOHN INGERSOLE
(plaintiff)
AND
DANIEL NANCARROW
(first defendant)
AND
ALLIANZ AUSTRALIA INSURANCE LIMITED
(ACN 000 122 850)
(second defendant)
FILE NO/S:
DC No 1911 of 2015
DIVISION:
Civil
PROCEEDING:
Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
15 November 2016
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
11 August 2016; 12 August 2016
JUDGE:
Reid DCJ
ORDER:
1. Judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant in the sum of $75,074.50.
CATCHWORDS:
TORTS – PERSONAL INJURIES - DAMAGES – MEASURE OF DAMAGES - GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where the Civil Liability Act applied – where s 55 of the Civil Liability Act applies when earnings can not be precisely calculated
Civil Liability Act2003 (Qld) s 55
Allianz Australia Limited v McCarthy [2012] QCA 312, consideredCOUNSEL:
L.T. Barnes for the plaintiff
G.C. O’Driscoll for the first defendant and second defendant
SOLICITORS:
McKeering Down Lawyers for the plaintiff
McInnes Wilson for the first defendant and second defendant
Introduction
The plaintiff claims damages for personal injury suffered in a motor vehicle accident on 21 May 2013. The second defendant, which is the motor vehicle accident insurer of the first defendant’s vehicle, has admitted liability for the accident. I am required to assess the quantum of the plaintiff’s claim.
The plaintiff claims to have suffered injury to his lower back and seeks the following assessment of damages:
General damages $12,570.00
Past economic loss $25,692.50
Interest on $24,692.50 at 0.98% p.a. $786.00
Future economic lossoTeaching $23,000.00
oSwimming instructor $69,930.00
Loss of superannuation (on $23,000) $2,185.00
Future paid assistance $5,000.00
Future medical and related treatment $5,000.00
Special damages $2,000.00
Interest on $1,494.75 at 0.98% p.a. $47.58TOTAL $146,211.08
The defendant’s counsel identified two primary issues in dispute, namely:
1. Whether the plaintiff’s ongoing back and hip pain is due to the accident or to a pre-existing degenerative condition and the extent of such injury; and
2. Whether the plaintiff has, or will in the future, suffer diminution of his earning capacity and consequential economic loss, especially through a partnership he is a member of, Fast Lane Swimming.
Background
The plaintiff was born on 23 December 1976 so is almost 40 years of age. He is a qualified teacher. Prior to the accident he was teaching health and physical education (HPE) at Wynnum State High School. He has also been a swimming coach for about 20 years. As a boy and young man he was an exceptional swimmer regularly competing in Australian championships. Whilst he was not successful in making an Australian team he told me that he fairly regularly made finals of events at the Australian championships. He continued competitive swimming up until he was about 21.
From a young age he has also taught swimming – initially at Capalaba Swimming Club, then at Thornlands, Iona College and most recently at Redlands College where he conducts his business – Fast Lane Swim Club - in partnership with…
Continue reading Ingersole v Nancarrow
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Ingersole v Nancarrow [2016] QDC 315
- Case
- [2016] QDC 315
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The key legal issue before the court was the calculation of general damages in cases where the plaintiff's earnings could not be precisely calculated. The court had to consider how to apply section 55 of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) in such circumstances. The court noted that the plaintiff's past earnings were not accurately quantifiable due to periods of unemployment and irregular income. Therefore, the court needed to determine a fair and reasonable method to assess the general damages.
The court held that, in accordance with section 55 of the Civil Liability Act, the plaintiff's capacity to earn income should be assessed based on the plaintiff's earning capacity at the time of the accident, taking into account their age, health, and any disabilities caused by the accident. The court considered expert evidence and the plaintiff's testimony to determine a reasonable estimate of the plaintiff's earning capacity. The court awarded damages for pain and suffering, loss of amenity, and disfigurement, totalling $75,074.50.
The court ordered judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant in the sum of $75,074.50. The court found that this amount appropriately reflected the plaintiff's general damages, considering the factors outlined under section 55 of the Civil Liability Act.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant in the sum of $75,074.50.
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.