SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Kenny & Anor v Eyears & Anor [2003] QSC 439
PARTIES:
DEBORAH JOANNE KENNY
(first plaintiff)
and
JOHN ROBERT KENNY
(second plaintiff)
v
JAY EARLE EYEARS
(first defendant)
and
TRANSPORT ACCIDENT COMISSION(second defendant)
FILE NO:
S9334 of 2002
DIVISION:
Trial Division
PROCEEDING:
Trial
DELIVERED ON:
23 December 2003
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
7 – 8 August 2003
JUDGE:
Philippides J
ORDER:
Judgment for the first plaintiff against the defendants in the sum of $100,242
Judgment for the defendants against the second plaintiff
CATCHWORDS:
DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – where plaintiff’s stationary vehicle struck from behind – where plaintiff suffered injury to her neck and back – assessment of damages
DAMAGES – LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld) s 55(1)(a), s 55D(1)
Malec v JC Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638
North v Thompson [1971] WAR 103
Sharman v Evans (1977) 138 CLR 563Wynn v New South Wales Insurance Ministerial Corporation 133 ALR 154
COUNSEL:
R Stenson and K Jackson for the plaintiffs
M Grant-Taylor and D Schneidenin for the defendantsSOLICITORS:
Murphy Schmidt for the plaintiffs
Quinlan Miller & Treston for the defendants
PHILIPPIDES J:
The first plaintiff, Mrs Deborah Kenny, seeks damages for injuries suffered as a result of a motor vehicle accident on 20 October 2000. Mrs Kenny was the driver of a stationary vehicle which was struck from behind, pushing her car into the rear of the truck in front of her. The second plaintiff, Mr John Kenny, seeks damages for loss of consortium. All matters of liability have been resolved, leaving the assessment of damages as the only matter outstanding for determination.
Mrs Kenny, who was born on 4 January 1955, works as a Customer Service Officer with Qantas within the customer service department at the domestic terminal at Brisbane airport and has been employed there for some 29 years.
THE EVIDENCE
Evidence of Mrs Kenny
Following the accident, Mrs Kenny experienced pain in her neck and shoulders, with stiffness through her neck, shoulders and back. The pain in the thoracic back and the lower back continued, with pain experienced across her right shoulder and a burning sensation as well as soreness in her lower back. She experienced a burning sensation in her thoracic area when she bent forward with her hands in front of her. She still had some occasional pain in her neck on movement. Mrs Kenny indicated the lower area around the thoraso-lumbar junction and the upper scapular area to the left of the right shoulder blade as experiencing pins and needles sensations. She also said that when lying on her left side at night, she experienced numbness in her legs. She said that standing or sitting still and lying in bed could cause discomfort, and that sitting still caused stiffness and pins and needles in her thoracic area.
Mrs Kenny considered that for a period the pain affected her ability to relate with customers and people at work. In February…
Continue reading Kenny v Eyears
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Kenny v Eyears [2003] QSC 439
- Case
- [2003] QSC 439
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues the court needed to address were the assessment of damages for the plaintiff's personal injuries, including the extent and impact of those injuries, as well as the quantum of the award. The court also had to determine whether the plaintiff's husband was entitled to damages for loss of consortium. The defendants argued that the injuries claimed were exaggerated and that the plaintiff had not suffered as much as alleged.
In delivering judgment, the court found that the plaintiff did suffer injuries as a result of the accident and assessed the damages for her personal injuries at $100,242. The court noted that the plaintiff's injuries were genuine, but considered that the extent of the damages claimed was somewhat excessive. The court found that the plaintiff's husband was not entitled to damages for loss of consortium as there was insufficient evidence to substantiate such a claim. The court ultimately awarded judgment to the plaintiff against the defendants for the sum of $100,242, and dismissed the claim of the second plaintiff.
Orders
Orders of the court
Judgment for the first plaintiff against the defendants in the sum of $100,242
Judgment for the defendants against the second plaintiff
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.