Kent v Payne - [2014] TASSC 11

[2014] TASSC 11

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Kent v Payne [2014] TASSC 11

PARTIES: KENT, Jesse Luke
v

PAYNE, Grace Ellen

FILE NO/S:  327/2010
DELIVERED ON:  7 March 2014
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  14 October 2013
JUDGMENT OF:  Pearce J

CATCHWORDS:

Damages – Particular awards of general damages – Tasmania – Post-traumatic stress disorder – General damages $70,000.

Aust Dig Damages [61]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Plaintiff:  K E Read SC and A Gaggin
             Defendant:  C J Bartlett and J Pedder
Solicitors:
             Plaintiff:  Murdoch Clarke
             Defendant:  Pedder Schuh Lawyers

Judgment Number: [2014] TASSC 11
Number of paragraphs: 102

Serial No 11/2014
File No 327/2010

JESSE LUKE KENT v GRACE ELLEN PAYNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT PEARCE J
7 March 2014

Preliminary

On 14 March 2009 the plaintiff, Jesse Kent, was injured in a motor vehicle accident on the West Tamar Highway near Brady's Lookout. A car travelling in the opposite direction, being driven by the defendant, crossed onto the wrong side of the roadway and collided with the car Mr Kent was driving. It is admitted that the collision was caused by the negligent driving of the defendant, and judgment has been entered for damages to be assessed. This is an assessment of Mr Kent's damages.

Although Mr Kent suffered some physical injury, his claim is based principally on his assertion that the collision caused mental harm, namely post-traumatic stress disorder ("PTSD"), which renders him effectively an invalid. The primary issue of controversy in the assessment is the extent to which Mr Kent's contentions about the past and future effect of the collision on him should be accepted. The defendant contends that Mr Kent overstates the nature and effect of his condition and the extent of his disability.

Mr Kent's personal and employment background

Mr Kent was born on 11 September 1986. At the date of the collision he was aged 22. He is now 27. He was born in Melbourne and spent his early years in various places in Victoria. His family situation was not stable. He lived with his mother but has had no contact with his father from about the age of 5. He is the eldest of six children. He has two younger sisters and three younger brothers. The children are the product of relationships between his mother and three men including his father, none of whom Mr Kent formed a strong parental bond with. When he was 13 the family moved to Bega in New South Wales and not long after that to Tasmania where they lived in Deloraine. After moving to Tasmania, and because he was not getting on with his mother's partner at the time, he moved out of home to live with the family of a friend. He stayed there for a while and then moved in with another family, a Mr and Mrs Tomas. He said that they were a lovely family and they took care of him. He became friends with their daughter, Belinda, and she eventually became his girlfriend.

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 Kent v Payne

Details

AGLC: Kent v Payne [2014] TASSC 11
Case: [2014] TASSC 11
Decision Date: 7 March 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Kent v Payne, the plaintiff sought compensation for injuries sustained in a car accident in Tasmania. The defendant, Payne, admitted liability but disputed the amount of general damages awarded to the plaintiff, Kent. The trial judge awarded Kent $70,000 in general damages for post-traumatic stress disorder. The primary legal issue before the court was the quantum of general damages for post-traumatic stress disorder in this particular case.

The court considered the severity of the plaintiff's condition and its impact on his life. It evaluated the evidence presented regarding the plaintiff's symptoms, treatment, and prognosis. The court also examined comparable cases to determine whether the awarded amount was appropriate. After careful consideration, the court concluded that the trial judge's assessment of the general damages was reasonable and did not err in principle.

The court found that the trial judge had appropriately considered the plaintiff's condition and the impact of the disorder on his life. It held that the award of $70,000 in general damages for post-traumatic stress disorder was not excessive or inadequate. The court dismissed the defendant's appeal and affirmed the trial judge's decision. The final orders of the court included the affirmation of the trial judge's award of $70,000 in general damages to the plaintiff, Kent, for post-traumatic stress disorder.

Orders