Johansson v Hare - [2006] QSC 223

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Johansson v Hare & Anor [2006] QSC 223

PARTIES:

BELINDA DONNA JOHANSSON (TAYLOR)
(Plaintiff)
v
WAYNE MILTON HARE
(First Defendant)
SUNCORP METWAY INSURANCE LIMITED
(ACN 075 695 966)
(Second Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

137 of 2005

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Civil hearing

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court, Cairns

DELIVERED ON:

17 July 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Cairns

HEARING DATE:

15, 16 March 2006;

JUDGE:

Jones J

ORDER:

1. Judgment be entered for the plaintiff against the second defendant in the sum of $334,885.61.
2. I adjourn consideration of the question of costs, allowing the parties to make written submissions within 14 days from the date hereof.

CATCHWORDS:

DAMAGES – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – plaintiff injured in a motor vehicle accident – liability admitted by second defendant – assessment of quantum of damages pursuant to the Civil Liability Act 2003

COUNSEL:

Mr Crow for the plaintiff
Mr Green for the second defendant

SOLICITORS:

McKays Solicitors for the plaintiff
Grant & Simpson, Lawyers for the defendants

On 4 December 2002 the plaintiff was injured in a collision between her car and a large truck at an intersection at Rockhampton in the State of Queensland. By these proceedings, she seeks an award of damages in respect of those injures. The second defendant has admitted its liability to pay those damages and the remaining task is to assess the quantum of allowances not yet agreed.

The plaintiff was born on 18 June 1958 and was therefore 44 years of age at the time of the incident and is currently 48 years old. A period of 6.5 years have elapsed since the accident.

Prior to the accident the plaintiff was in good health and led an active lifestyle. Until six months prior to the incident she had engaged in competitive basketball.

The collision invoked significant force – sufficient to cause the passenger side of the vehicle to be crushed. The vehicle was “written off”. The immediate effect of the collision was to cause the plaintiff to be shaken and upset. She attended her general practitioner, Dr Voloshinov, who sent her for x-rays and prescribed anti-inflammatory and analgesic medication. She experienced increasing pain in her lower back over the next few days and she returned to Dr Voloshinov on 6 December and 9 December 2002. He referred her to a physiotherapist and certified that she was incapacitated for work until mid-January 2003.

The plaintiff at the time held the position of a salesperson with DMG Regional Radio network. It was a responsible position and despite the certificate she had, her manager asked her to return to work for a few days before Christmas 2002. She did this, notwithstanding she was still suffering headaches and pain in her neck and lower back. Her motivation for so doing was to preserve her chances of promotion which in fact subsequently did occur. She was initially promoted in February 2003 to the position of Sales Manager at Rockhampton and in April 2003 to the position of…

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 Johansson v Hare

Details

AGLC: Johansson v Hare [2006] QSC 223
Case: [2006] QSC 223
Decision Date: 17 July 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Johansson v Hare, the plaintiff, Johansson, sought damages for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The accident involved the plaintiff, the first defendant, and the second defendant, Hare. Liability for the accident was admitted by Hare, the second defendant, leaving the sole issue for determination to be the quantum of damages payable to Johansson.

The court was required to determine the appropriate amount of general damages and economic loss to compensate Johansson for his injuries. This involved assessing the extent of Johansson's physical and psychological injuries, the impact of those injuries on his life, and the costs associated with his treatment and rehabilitation. The court also needed to consider statutory provisions, particularly those under the Civil Liability Act 2003, which provide a framework for assessing damages in personal injury cases.

The court found Johansson to be entitled to damages of $334,885.61. This amount reflected the total of general damages for pain and suffering, economic loss for past and future medical expenses, and loss of earnings. The court's assessment took into account the severity and impact of Johansson's injuries, as well as the statutory guidelines for assessing damages. The court noted the importance of ensuring that the damages awarded were sufficient to compensate Johansson for his losses but also cautioned against excessive awards.

The court entered judgment for Johansson against Hare in the sum of $334,885.61. The consideration of costs was adjourned to allow for written submissions from both parties within 14 days of the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Judgment be entered for the plaintiff against the second defendant in the sum of $334,885.61.

2. I adjourn consideration of the question of costs, allowing the parties to make written submissions within 14 days from the date hereof.

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.

CITATION:	Johansson v Hare & Anor [2006] QSC 223
PARTIES:	BELINDA DONNA JOHANSSON (TAYLOR) (Plaintiff) v WAYNE MILTON HARE (First Defendant) SUNCORP METWAY INSURANCE LIMITED (ACN 075 695 966) (Second Defendant)
FILE NO/S:	137 of 2005
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Civil hearing
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court, Cairns
DELIVERED ON:	17 July 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Cairns
HEARING DATE:	15, 16 March 2006;
JUDGE:	Jones J
ORDER:	1. Judgment be entered for the plaintiff against the second defendant in the sum of $334,885.61. 2. I adjourn consideration of the question of costs, allowing the parties to make written submissions within 14 days from the date hereof.
CATCHWORDS:	DAMAGES – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – plaintiff injured in a motor vehicle accident – liability admitted by second defendant – assessment of quantum of damages pursuant to the Civil Liability Act 2003
COUNSEL:	Mr Crow for the plaintiff Mr Green for the second defendant
SOLICITORS:	McKays Solicitors for the plaintiff Grant & Simpson, Lawyers for the defendants