Johnson v Nominal Defendant - [2003] QSC 472

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Johnson v Nominal Defendant [2003] QSC 472

PARTIES:

DAVID LESLIE JOHNSON
(plaintiff)
v
THE NOMINAL DEFENDANT
(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

SC No 2241 of 2001

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Trial

DELIVERED ON:

19 December 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

10, 11, 12 December 2003

JUDGE:

Holmes J

ORDER:

Judgment awarded for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $117,380.38

CATCHWORDS:

DAMAGES – MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF
DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT – MEASURE OF

DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where plaintiff injured in motor vehicle accident – where plaintiff had pre-existing conditions – whether loss of employment due to injuries – what damages to be awarded

Batista v Citra Constructions Pty Ltd & Anor ( 1986) 5 NSWLR 351
Lee v The Queen (1998) 195 CLR 594
The Queen v Perry(No 2) (1981) 28 SASR 95

Ramsay v Watson (1961) 108 CLR 642

COUNSEL:

G W Diehm for the plaintiff

J B Rolls for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Butler McDermott & Egan Solicitors for the plaintiff

Corrs Chambers Westgarth for the defendant

The motor vehicle accident

Liability is admitted in this case. The plaintiff, David Leslie Johnson, was born on 8^th November 1962. He was injured in a motor vehicle accident in the evening of 17 March 1998, when he swerved to avoid a car which pulled out onto the highway in front of him. His vehicle, a Toyota Seca sedan, left the road, rolling over and landing on its roof at the bottom of an embankment. The plaintiff said that he was unconscious for what he perceived as a brief period, of perhaps two to five minutes, and then came to, to find that he was upside down in his seatbelt. He managed to climb out through the smashed back window of his vehicle and make his way back to the roadside. A passing truck pulled up and rang the emergency services for him.

The plaintiff was examined by ambulance officers at the scene. The Queensland Ambulance Service record on the call out, tendered by consent, shows that he gave the ambulance officers an account of the accident. His Glasgow coma scale was recorded at 15/15. He was found to have a contusion to his scalp, but he was not taken to hospital. The plaintiff said that a tow-truck driver arrived to tow his car away and gave him a lift to a petrol station, from where he rang his wife, who collected him from there and took him home.

Earlier accidents

This was not the plaintiff’s first motor vehicle accident. In 1979, he sustained a fracture on the right hand side of his skull in a collision, and was admitted to the Gold Coast Hospital. He told neurologists examining him for the purposes of this litigation that he had been unconscious for a period of between 6 and 8 eight hours after that accident. The notes of observations made of him while he was in hospital show…

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 Johnson v Nominal Defendant

Details

AGLC: Johnson v Nominal Defendant [2003] QSC 472
Case: [2003] QSC 472
Decision Date: 19 December 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Johnson, sought damages for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. Johnson alleged that the defendant was negligent in causing the accident, which exacerbated pre-existing medical conditions. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. Johnson claimed that the injuries led to a loss of employment, resulting in financial loss, and sought compensation for past and future economic loss, as well as non-economic loss.

The court needed to determine the measure and remoteness of damages in light of Johnson's pre-existing conditions. The central issue was whether the loss of employment was a direct consequence of the accident or merely an exacerbation of the pre-existing conditions. The court also needed to establish the appropriate amount of damages for the injuries, including both economic and non-economic loss.

The court found that the accident was a significant contributing factor to Johnson's loss of employment, despite the pre-existing conditions. It concluded that the loss of employment was not too remote a consequence of the accident. The court assessed the damages by considering the extent of the injuries, the impact on Johnson's ability to work, and the pre-existing conditions. After evaluating the evidence, the court awarded Johnson damages of $117,380.38.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgment awarded for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $117,380.38

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:	Johnson v Nominal Defendant [2003] QSC 472
PARTIES:	DAVID LESLIE JOHNSON (plaintiff) v THE NOMINAL DEFENDANT (defendant)
FILE NO/S:	SC No 2241 of 2001
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Trial
DELIVERED ON:	19 December 2003
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	10, 11, 12 December 2003
JUDGE:	Holmes J
ORDER:	Judgment awarded for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $117,380.38
CATCHWORDS:	DAMAGES – MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where plaintiff injured in motor vehicle accident – where plaintiff had pre-existing conditions – whether loss of employment due to injuries – what damages to be awarded Batista v Citra Constructions Pty Ltd & Anor ( 1986) 5 NSWLR 351 Lee v The Queen (1998) 195 CLR 594 The Queen v Perry(No 2) (1981) 28 SASR 95 Ramsay v Watson (1961) 108 CLR 642
COUNSEL:	G W Diehm for the plaintiff J B Rolls for the defendant
SOLICITORS:	Butler McDermott & Egan Solicitors for the plaintiff Corrs Chambers Westgarth for the defendant