Jackson v Robinson - [1999] NSWSC 1164

CITATION: Jackson v Robinson [1999] NSWSC 1164

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Civil

FILE NUMBER(S): 300066/97

HEARING DATE(S): 1/11/99,2/11/99,3/11/99

JUDGMENT DATE:
1 December 1999

PARTIES :

Sharmane Jackson (Plt)
Daniel Robinson (Def)

JUDGMENT OF: Newman J

COUNSEL : D T Kennedy SC (Plt)
J P Guihot (Def)

SOLICITORS: Stanger & Clarke (Plt)
Hunt & Hunt ( Def)

CATCHWORDS:

DECISION: Assessment only

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
NEWMAN J
WEDNESDAY, 1 DECEMBER 1999
NEWCASTLE: 66/97 - JACKSON v ROBINSON
JUDGMENT
1    HIS HONOUR: This is a claim for damages for personal injuries arising out of a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 6 March 1996. Breach of duty of care has been admitted by the defendant and thus the matter is one calling for the assessment of damages pursuant to the Motor Accidents Act 1988 should the plaintiff qualify.
2    In the light of the concession that the defendant was in breach of his duty of care it is not necessary for me to go into the facts of the accident in great detail. Suffice it to say that the plaintiff was driving a motor vehicle which was stationary in a line of traffic when the defendant’s vehicle collided with the rear of the vehicle the plaintiff was driving. In these circumstances the concession made is hardly surprising.
3    Following the accident the plaintiff attended the Wallsend Hospital Primary Care Centre where she was complaining of pain in her low back and neck. At the time the plaintiff was employed as an apprentice electrician with Port Waratah Coal Service.
4    At the Wallsend Hospital, Dr Accardi concluded that the plaintiff had suffered soft tissue injuries to her neck and low back and prescribed medication and arranged for the plaintiff to have physiotherapy and a neck brace. He certified her unfit, at that stage, for work for one week.
5    She underwent the prescribed physiotherapy and attended her general practitioner, one Dr E Balaz. The plaintiff continued to complain of pain in her neck and low back and remained off work.
6    By mid April the plaintiff was complaining of headaches, pain radiating into both her arms from her neck, pins and needles in her right hand, interscapular pain. As far as her back was concerned she noticed that the pain was radiating from her low back down to the back of her right calf. She also complained of pain radiating from her back down her left knee to knee level. She remained off work.
7    On 15 May 1996 she was referred to Dr A Isaacs, orthopaedic surgeon. The plaintiff’s complaints were similar to those she had been making to Dr Balaz. Dr Isaacs noted also tenderness over the mid cervical and upper thoracic spine together with tenderness over associated muscles. He also noted tenderness over the L4/5 and L5/S1 area in her low back mainly over the right sacroiliac joint. Sciatic stretch testing proved positive.
8    Following that episode she underwent a bone scan at Dr Isaacs’ direction…

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 Jackson v Robinson

Details

AGLC: Jackson v Robinson [1999] NSWSC 1164
Case: [1999] NSWSC 1164
Decision Date: 1 December 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jackson v Robinson is a case concerning a claim for damages for personal injuries arising out of a motor vehicle accident. The plaintiff, Sharmane Jackson, was rear-ended while stationary in traffic by the defendant, Daniel Robinson, who admitted to breaching his duty of care. The matter before the court was the assessment of damages under the Motor Accidents Act 1988, given the admission of liability by the defendant.

The legal issues the court had to address included determining the extent and permanence of the plaintiff's injuries, evaluating her capacity to earn income, and quantifying the damages claim, which included past and future medical expenses, loss of earning capacity, non-economic loss, and home assistance. The court had to weigh conflicting medical opinions regarding the severity and authenticity of the plaintiff's symptoms and consider her potential for employment in non-manual fields.

The court found that the plaintiff had established, on a balance of probabilities, that she suffered from the disabilities she claimed. Despite the defendant's arguments that the plaintiff exaggerated her symptoms, the court accepted the opinions of the plaintiff's treating doctors over those of the defendant's experts. The court also assessed the plaintiff's intellectual capacity and her ability to engage in sedentary work, despite her physical disabilities. Based on these findings, the court quantified the plaintiff's damages, including her past wage loss, future wage loss, non-economic loss, future medical expenses, and home assistance, totaling $464,626.12.

The court deferred making an order for judgment and costs to allow the parties to review the calculations.

Orders