Jankulovski v Crewes - [2001] WADC 223

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: JANKULOVSKI -v- CREWES [2001] WADC 223

CORAM: O'BRIEN DCJ

HEARD: 27-31 AUGUST 2001

DELIVERED : 21 SEPTEMBER 2001

FILE NO/S: CIV 1672 of 2000

BETWEEN: LJUPKO JANKULOVSKI
Plaintiff
AND
GLENN RAYMOND CREWES
Defendant

Catchwords:

Personal injuries - Motor vehicle accident - Causation - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Motor Vehicle (Third Party Insurance) Act 1943

Result:

Damages awarded

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: Mr D R Clyne
Defendant: Mr J P T Olivier

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: Friedman Lurie Singh
Defendant: Talbot & Olivier

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

Black v Motor Vehicle Insurance Trust [1986] WAR 32
Bowen v Tutte [1990] A Tort Rep 81‑043
Foyster v Goynich [1984] WAR 80
Jongen v CSR Ltd & Anor (1992) A Tort Rep 81‑192
Kember v Thackrah [2000] WASCA 198
Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission (1995) 182 CLR 1
Thomas v O'Shea (1989) A Tort Rep 80‑251
Villasevil v Pickering [2001] WASCA 143
Watts v Rake (1960) 108 CLR 158

Case(s) also cited:

Fox v Wood (1981) 148 CLR 438
Gardner Brothers & Perrott (WA) Pty Ltd v Seat, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 7318; 13 October 1988
Malec v J C Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638
Wade v Allsopp (1976) 10 ALR 353

O'BRIEN DCJ: Ljupko Jankulovski ("the plaintiff") is a 50 year old man who was injured in a motor vehicle accident on 9 February 1998. He was driving his work van south down Fitzgerald Street, North Perth, and was stationary at the intersection of Fitzgerald and Vincent Streets when the car driven by the defendant collided with his van. The intersection was controlled by traffic lights and the plaintiff's van was a couple of cars back from the intersection. The vehicle driven by the defendant failed to completely take a left hand turn into Fitzgerald Street and clipped the tyre of the car in front of the plaintiff's van before colliding with the plaintiff's van on the right hand side at the front. Liability is admitted. The issue for my determination is the amount of damages.
The plaintiff claims that after the accident he has not worked apart from short periods after the accident and periods of rehabilitative work trials. He claims to suffer pain in his neck, right shoulder and wrist and lower back; headaches and intermittent dizziness; and depression.
The defendant denies that the plaintiff's injuries are a result of the accident and, in the alternative, claims that whatever injuries or symptoms he does experience are unrelated to the injuries sustained in the accident. In particular, the defendant alleges that the plaintiff was suffering from degenerative spinal disease both prior to and subsequent to the accident; that his low back pain was caused when lifting in or around May 1998; that he had previously injured his left knee; and his right median nerve compression was unrelated to the accident. The plaintiff's counsel conceded at trial that the wrist pain was unrelated to the…

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 Jankulovski v Crewes

Details

AGLC: Jankulovski v Crewes [2001] WADC 223
Case: [2001] WADC 223
Decision Date: 21 SEPTEMBER 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Jankulovski v Crewes was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, Jankulovski, brought an action against the defendant, Crewes, following a motor vehicle accident. The plaintiff claimed damages for personal injuries sustained during the collision. The defendant contested liability, arguing that the accident was not caused by his actions but rather by an unforeseeable intervening event. The court was tasked with determining whether the defendant's actions directly caused the plaintiff's injuries or if there was an intervening cause that broke the chain of causation.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the defendant's actions were the sole cause of the plaintiff's injuries or if there was an intervening cause that absolved the defendant of liability. The court examined the evidence and considered the principles of causation in tort law. It was necessary to assess whether the plaintiff's injuries were a direct result of the defendant's actions or if they were caused by an independent, unforeseen event that could not have been reasonably predicted.

The court found that the evidence demonstrated that the defendant's negligent driving directly caused the accident and subsequent injuries to the plaintiff. The court rejected the argument that an intervening cause had broken the chain of causation. The court held that the defendant's actions were the primary cause of the accident and that the injuries sustained by the plaintiff were a direct and foreseeable result of those actions. The court awarded the plaintiff damages for the injuries sustained, holding the defendant liable for the full extent of the plaintiff's losses.

The court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident. The amount of damages was determined based on the evidence presented regarding the plaintiff's medical expenses, loss of income, and pain and suffering. The court's decision emphasised the importance of establishing direct causation in personal injury claims and highlighted the need for careful consideration of all factors that may contribute to an accident.

Orders