Kraus v Sartori

[2016] NSWDC 102

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Kraus v Sartori [2016] NSWDC 102
Hearing dates:	30 and 31 May 2016
Date of orders:	06 June 2016
Decision date:	06 June 2016
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Before:	Elkaim SC DCJ
Decision:	Damages assessed at $1,768,833.20. Final orders subject to adjustments for contributory negligence, Section 83 payments and funds management.
Catchwords:	Assessment of damages, onset of psychotic condition, economic loss, care
Legislation Cited:	Motor Accident Compensation Act 1999
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Daniel Kraus by his tutor Zoya Kraus (Plaintiff) Andrew Jason Sartori (First Defendant) Kingmill Pty Limited (Second Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: P Khandhar (Plaintiff) J Turnbull SC (Defendants)   Solicitors: Brydens Law Office (Plaintiff) Holman Webb Lawyers (Defendants)
File Number(s):	2013/00197898

Judgment

1. The plaintiff was born in 1982. On 28 August 2010 he was a passenger in a motor vehicle involved in a one vehicle accident near Medlow Bath. The vehicle was being driven by a friend of the plaintiff (the first defendant). The vehicle was owned by the second defendant.

2. The plaintiff was so seriously injured that he required a tutor to pursue his claim. He blamed his injuries on the defendants. They accepted blame and admitted primary liability. However, due to the involvement of alcohol, contributory negligence was involved. The parties were able to ‘settle’ this aspect. Their agreement was approved by Olsson DCJ.

3. The matter therefore came before me for the assessment of damages. There was little dispute about the nature of the plaintiff’s injuries. There was much dispute about the translation of the injuries into damages. The primary areas of disagreement were economic loss and future care.

4. The assessment of damages is governed by the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (the “MACA”). The plaintiff exceeded the threshold set by Section 131 and is therefore entitled to non-economic loss. An early indication of the severity of the plaintiff’s injuries was the parties’ respective statement of the level of non-economic loss. The plaintiff said $400,000. The defendant said $300,000. This level of non-economic loss is an early indicator of the severity of the plaintiff’s injuries.

The plaintiff’s background

5. It can be seen from the chronology (Exhibit F) that the plaintiff was born in Sydney but after the separation of his parents moved to the Blue Mountains. He was a keen and competent sportsman and completed Year 12 at the Blue Mountains Grammar School.

6. The plaintiff was married in 2002. One daughter was born of the relationship. The plaintiff separated from his wife in early 2010 although they were still sharing their house when the accident occurred. Exhibit C shows the plaintiff and his wife on the date of purchase of their house.

7. The plaintiff did have some medical issues prior to the accident but none were of significance and certainly did not impact upon his post-accident condition. It does seem that the plaintiff perhaps drank too much alcohol and from time to time consumed illicit drugs. Medical opinion in the case has excluded these issues as being responsible for…