Kriz v King

Case [2006] QCA 351

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Kriz v King & Anor [2006] QCA 351

PARTIES:

DANIELLE ANNE KRIZ
(plaintiff/respondent)
v
MARY KING
(first defendant)
SUNCORP METWAY INSURANCE LIMITED

ACN 075 695 966
(second defendant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 540 of 2006
DC No 1553 of 2005

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

15 September 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

22 May 2006

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Jerrard JA and Helman J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed with costs

CATCHWORDS:

DAMAGES - MEASURE OF DAMAGES - PERSONAL INJURIES - GENERAL PRINCIPLES - where  respondent was injured in a motor vehicle accident and was awarded damages at trial - where appellant insurance company contends that primary judge erred in not assessing those damages relating to past and future gratuitous services in accordance with principles recently stated in CSR Ltd v Eddy and with the construction of s 59 Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) - whether judge did so err

Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld), s 59

Bropho v Western Australia (1990) 171 CLR 1, applied

Carroll v Coomber & Anor [2006] QDC 146; DC No 2931 of 2005, 31 May 2006, approved

Coco v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 427, applied

CSR Ltd v Eddy [2005] HCA 64; (2005) 80 ALJR 59, applied

Grice v State of Qld [2005] QCA 272; [2006] 1 Qd R 222, 5 August 2005, considered

Griffiths v Kerkemeyer (1977) 139 CLR 161, applied

Potter v Minahan (1908) 7 CLR 277, applied

Roads and Traffic Authority v McGregor & Anor [2005] NSWCA 388; No 40277 of 2004, 11 November 2005, distinguished

Sturch v Willmott [1997] 2 Qd R 310, disapproved

Sullivan v Gordon (1999) 47 NSWLR 319, disapproved

COUNSEL:

K N Wilson SC for the appellant
R J Lynch for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Jensen McConaghy for the appellant
David Colwell & Company for the respondent

  1. McMURDO P:  The respondent, Ms Kriz, was injured in a motor vehicle accident on 30 May 2003.  She brought an action against the first defendant, Ms King, who was insured by the second defendant/appellant.  Liability was not in issue at the trial which concerned only the assessment of damages.  The primary judge ultimately gave judgment for the respondent in the sum of $76,311.40.[1]  The appellant appeals from that part of the damages award relating to past and future gratuitous services contending that the judge erred in not assessing those damages according to the principles recently stated in CSR Ltd v Eddy[2] and in the construction of s 59 Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) ("the Act").

    [1]The judge initially assessed damages at $76,116.40, which included at [89] of his reasons a past gratuitous care award for the second three month period following the accident of five hours per week for 13 weeks at $15 per hour.  His Honour later…

Continue reading Kriz v King

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Kriz v King [2006] QCA 351
Case
[2006] QCA 351
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondent in Kriz v King, an Australian court case, was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought damages. The case was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal. The appellant, an insurance company, argued that the trial judge had erred in the assessment of damages for past and future gratuitous services, contending that the assessment should have been made in accordance with recent principles stated in CSR Ltd v Eddy and the construction of section 59 of the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld). The court was required to determine whether the trial judge had indeed erred in this regard.

The primary legal issue was the correct method of assessing damages for past and future gratuitous services in personal injury cases, particularly in light of the statutory provisions and the principles set out in CSR Ltd v Eddy. The court considered whether the trial judge had applied the correct legal principles in assessing these damages. The case involved interpreting section 59 of the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) and applying it in conjunction with relevant case law. The court also needed to determine whether the trial judge's approach was consistent with established legal principles.

In its reasoning, the court held that the trial judge had correctly assessed the damages for past and future gratuitous services. The court found that the trial judge had correctly applied the principles established in CSR Ltd v Eddy and the statutory provisions of the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld). The court emphasised that the trial judge's approach was consistent with the relevant legal authorities, including the High Court decision in Bropho v Western Australia and other significant precedents. The court concluded that there was no error in the trial judge's assessment and that the appeal should be dismissed. The insurance company's contention that the trial judge had misapplied the relevant legal principles was rejected.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal with costs. The court ruled that the trial judge had correctly assessed the damages for past and future gratuitous services and that there was no basis to overturn the trial decision. The insurance company was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed with costs

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.