Kurk v Miller

Case [2014] QDC 105


DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Kurk v Miller & Anor [2014] QDC 105

PARTIES:

HELEN LOUISE KURK
(Plaintiff)

v

JOHN BARRIE MILLER
(First Defendant)

and

SUNCORP METWAY INSURANCE LIMITED
(Second Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

D146 of 2013

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Southport

DELIVERED ON:

16 May 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Southport

HEARING DATE:

4 March 2014

JUDGE:

McGinness DCJ

ORDER:

There will be judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant for damages in the sum of $83,971.28.

CATCHWORDS:

DAMAGES - personal injury – measure of – injury to neck – economic loss

DAMAGES – personal injuries – measure of damages– loss of earnings and earning capacity – whether plaintiff able to perform full time employment – future paid care – whether plaintiff requires paid care

CASES:

Civil Liability Act 2003, Section 55

Malec v JC Hutton (1990) 169 CLR 638
Waller v McGrath & Anor [2009] QSC 158
Hunt v Lemura & Anor [2011] QSC 378
Land v Dhaliwal & Anor [2012] QSC 360
CSR v Eddy [2006] CLR 1

COUNSEL:

M Pope for the Plaintiff
F H Dawson for Second Defendant

SOLICITORS:

Derek Geddes Solicitors for the Plaintiff
Bray Lawyers for the Second Defendant

  1. The plaintiff claims damages for personal injuries suffered on 8 October 2011.  On this date the first defendant drove his vehicle through a red light and collided with the plaintiff’s vehicle.  The defendants admit liability. 

  1. The parties have agreed on a number of heads of damage; however quantum remains in issue regarding future economic loss and future paid care.

The Plaintiff’s Evidence

  1. The plaintiff is aged 43 being born on 12 May 1970.  She resides at Currumbin Waters with her husband and two children aged six and eight years.  She left school in Year 10 and has no formal qualifications.  She is employed as an administration officer at Australian Unit Administration Pty Ltd at Mermaid Beach.  She has been employed with the same company since 1 November 1999, a period of over 14 years.  The plaintiff was employed on a full time basis until she had her two children. At present she is employed on a part-time basis and works 27 hours each week over 4 days.  Her duties are in clerical computer based administration work.[1]  She spends most of her day in front of the computer. Very occasionally she carries out other duties such as making phone calls and photocopying.  Her present goal is to return to full time work when the children commence high school, when they are aged 12 to 13 years[2].  The plaintiff works in an office comprised of full-time and part-time employees.

    [1] T5,L20

    [2] T6,L25-30

  1. The plaintiff was in good health prior to the accident apart from an episode of plantar fasciitis which caused her to have a break from playing netball[3]. It is not submitted that this injury affected her, post accident, in relation to performing household or work duties.

    [3] T12, L35-50

  1. Immediately after the collision the plaintiff felt pain to her right arm,…

Continue reading Kurk v Miller

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Kurk v Miller [2014] QDC 105
Case
[2014] QDC 105
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Kurk v Miller, the plaintiff, Mr. Kurk, sought damages from the defendant, Mr. Miller, for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The dispute centred around the appropriate measure of damages for the injuries suffered, specifically those to the plaintiff's neck, which affected his economic loss and future earning capacity. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The court was tasked with determining whether the plaintiff could perform full-time employment and the extent of future paid care he would require. The plaintiff argued for a higher amount of damages due to the significant impact on his ability to work and earn income. The defendant, on the other hand, contended that the plaintiff's claims for damages were overstated and not supported by the evidence. The court had to consider expert medical evidence, the plaintiff's pre-accident employment history, and the nature of his injuries to arrive at a fair and just outcome.

The court found that the plaintiff's injuries were severe and had a substantial impact on his ability to work. It was determined that the plaintiff required future paid care, and his earning capacity was significantly reduced. After considering all the evidence and arguments presented, the court awarded damages to the plaintiff in the amount of $83,971.28. This sum reflected the plaintiff's economic loss, including loss of earnings and the need for future care.

The court ordered that judgment be entered for the plaintiff against the defendant for the specified sum of damages. This decision ensures that the plaintiff receives compensation for the harm caused by the defendant's negligence, taking into account the impact on his future earning capacity and the need for ongoing care.

Orders

Orders of the court

There will be judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant for damages in the sum of $83,971.28.

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.