SARAH KIIVER v MELIAME LAGONI KING
[2013] ACTSC 142 (1 August 2013)
DAMAGES – personal injury – rear-end motor vehicle collision at low speed – whiplash associated disorder – history of depression prior to accident
Civil Law (Wrongs) Act s 45
Safety, Rehabilitation andCompensation Act 1988 (Cth) s 50
Blundell v Leighton [2013] ACTCA 1
Fox v Wood (1981) 148 CLR 438
Koeck v Persic (1996) Aust Torts Reports 81-386
Mahoney v J Kruschich (Demolitions) Pty. Ltd. (1985) 156 CLR 522
Shorey v PT Limited (2003) 77 ALJR 1104; 197 ALR 410
Waters v Dalli [2009] ACTSC 158
No. SC 200 of 2010
Judge: Master Mossop
Supreme Court of the ACT
Date: 1 August 2013
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE )
) No. SC 200 of 2010
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )
BETWEEN: SARAH KIIVER
Plaintiff
AND: MELIAME LAGONI KING
Defendant
ORDER
Judge: Master Mossop
Date: 1 August 2013
Place: Canberra
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
Judgment be entered for the plaintiff in the sum of $422,934.96.
Unless any party makes an application to be heard in relation to the question of costs before 4pm on 4 September 2013 the defendant is to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings as agreed or assessed.
There be the usual order as to interest.
This case involves an assessment of damages arising out of a motor vehicle accident on 28 March 2007. The accident was a minor rear-end collision which occurred when the plaintiff was a passenger in a vehicle which was struck from behind whilst waiting to turn right from Anzac Parade into Parkes Way. Liability was admitted. There was a serious contest of the extent of damages.
The case was commenced by the plaintiff and then taken over, with the consent of the plaintiff, by Comcare and run in the plaintiff’s name pursuant to s 50 of the Safety, Rehabilitation andCompensation Act 1988 (Cth).
Facts
The plaintiff was born in 1971 and at the time of trial was 42 years old. She arrived with her family in Australia in 1973 and attended Holt primary school. She attended Merici College in Braddon and completed year 10 in 1986. She then completed two years of a spray painting apprenticeship before working in an administrative capacity at a Canberra law firm for two years. In January 1991 she went overseas for about two and half years and while overseas worked in the hospitality industry. She returned to Australia in July 1993 and returned to work at the same law firm in Canberra, this time as the secretary to one of the partners. She continued working there until 1998.
During that time she purchased a house in Higgins and renovated the house. That involved undertaking landscaping work and renovating the kitchen, laundry and toilets. Some of this work was undertaken with the assistance of a friend or her father but it was mainly just her. Examples of the work that she undertook included ripping up the carpets and plastering walls. She said…
Continue reading Kiiver and King
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Kiiver and King [2013] ACTSC 142
- Case
- [2013] ACTSC 142
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the court was the quantum of damages for the plaintiff's personal injury. The court had to consider the extent to which the plaintiff's pre-existing condition of depression affected the assessment of damages. The court also needed to determine the appropriate discount rate for future economic loss and the extent of the plaintiff's loss of earning capacity. The court was required to weigh the evidence presented by both parties and apply the relevant legal principles to arrive at a just and equitable outcome.
The court found that the plaintiff had suffered a significant injury as a result of the accident, which had exacerbated her pre-existing condition of depression. The court held that the plaintiff's history of depression did not preclude her from recovering damages for the injury caused by the accident. The court rejected the defendant's argument that the plaintiff's pre-existing condition should be taken into account in assessing the quantum of damages. The court also found that the plaintiff's loss of earning capacity was 50%, which was a reasonable estimate based on the evidence presented. The court awarded the plaintiff damages in the sum of $422,934.96, which included compensation for pain and suffering, loss of amenities, past and future medical expenses, loss of earnings, and loss of earning capacity.
The court ordered that judgment be entered for the plaintiff in the sum of $422,934.96. The court also ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings on an indemnity basis. The court held that the defendant's conduct in causing the accident was egregious, and the plaintiff was entitled to an indemnity costs order. The court further held that the plaintiff's recovery of costs was not affected by her history of depression.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
Judgment be entered for the plaintiff in the sum of $422,934.96.
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.