Jay v Baker; State of NSW (TAFE NSW Previously TAFE Commission) v Baker [2018] NSWDC 270
Hearing dates:
13-15 June 2017; 4-5 December 2017; 23-24 April 2018; 26-27 April 2018; 30 April 2018-1 May 2018; 17 August 2018; 31 August 2018 (last written submissions received)
Date of orders:
25 September 2018
Decision date:
25 September 2018
Jurisdiction:
Civil
Before:
Dicker SC DCJ
Decision:
(1) Judgment for Ms Jay against the defendant in the 2015 proceedings. (2) The defendant in the 2015 proceedings is to pay the plaintiff's costs of those proceedings as agreed or assessed. (3) Judgment for the plaintiff in the 2016 proceedings against the defendants. (4) The defendants in the 2016 proceedings are to pay the plaintiff's costs in those proceedings as agreed or assessed. (5) Liberty to the parties to apply to vary the costs orders in paragraphs 2 and 4 above within 14 days. (6) The parties in both proceedings are to bring in agreed Short Minutes of Order within 14 days reflecting the reasons for decision. In the event that agreement cannot be reached, the parties should approach the Associate to Dicker DCJ to have the matter listed for further directions. (7) The exhibits are to be retained until further order.
Catchwords:
Torts-negligence-motor vehicle accident - whether plaintiff pedestrian was negligently struck by passing vehicle driven by defendant - blameless accident provisions - extent of injuries - gratuitous care issues - indemnity claimed by employer - whether psychiatric illness caused by accident - previous medical condition - whether hip injury caused by accident – whether accident connected to plaintiff’s employment – whether closed period appropriate for loss of future earning capacity – relevance of apparent improvement in plaintiff’s physical condition
[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 Jay v Baker
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Jay v Baker [2018] NSWDC 270
Case
[2018] NSWDC 270
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Jay v Baker, the plaintiff, Ms Jay, initiated legal action against the defendant, Mr Baker, stemming from a motor vehicle accident in which she was struck while crossing the road. Ms Jay sought damages for injuries sustained in the accident, which included both physical and psychiatric harm. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland, where it was determined that Mr Baker was negligent in the operation of his vehicle, resulting in the collision. The court was tasked with deciding several legal issues, including the extent of Ms Jay’s injuries, the appropriateness of indemnity claims by her employer, and whether her psychiatric illness and hip injury were caused by the accident.
The court delved into the evidence presented regarding Ms Jay's injuries and the extent to which they were attributable to the accident. The analysis involved assessing whether the plaintiff’s pre-existing medical conditions exacerbated her injuries or if the accident was the primary cause. The court also examined the provisions of the blameless accident scheme and the implications for Ms Jay's entitlement to damages. Additionally, the court considered the impact of the accident on Ms Jay's employment and whether her injuries were connected to her job, which would affect the calculation of her loss of future earning capacity. The apparent improvement in Ms Jay’s physical condition was evaluated in the context of her overall recovery and long-term prognosis.
Following the detailed examination of the evidence and legal principles, the court ruled in favour of Ms Jay. It found that Mr Baker was indeed negligent and that Ms Jay was entitled to damages for her injuries, including both physical and psychiatric harm. The court ordered that Mr Baker pay Ms Jay’s costs of the proceedings. The judgment included specific directions for the preparation of Short Minutes of Order and provided liberty to the parties to apply to vary the costs orders within a stipulated timeframe. The exhibits were retained pending further order.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Judgment for Ms Jay against the defendant in the 2015 proceedings.
(2) The defendant in the 2015 proceedings is to pay the plaintiff's costs of those proceedings as agreed or assessed.
(3) Judgment for the plaintiff in the 2016 proceedings against the defendants.
(4) The defendants in the 2016 proceedings are to pay the plaintiff's costs in those proceedings as agreed or assessed.
(5) Liberty to the parties to apply to vary the costs orders in paragraphs 2 and 4 above within 14 days.
(6) The parties in both proceedings are to bring in agreed Short Minutes of Order within 14 days reflecting the reasons for decision. In the event that agreement cannot be reached, the parties should approach the Associate to Dicker DCJ to have the matter listed for further directions.
(7) The exhibits are to be retained until further order.