Leonardi v Payne - [2009] QSC 382

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Leonardi v Payne & Anor [2009] QSC 382

PARTIES:

SUSAN MAREE LEONARDI
(plaintiff)
v
CLINTON JAMES PAYNE
(first defendant)
ALLIANZ AUSTRALIA INSURANCE LIMITED
ACN 000 122 850
(second defendant)

FILE NO:

SC No 868 of 2007

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Personal Injury – Quantum

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

26 November 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Townsville

HEARING DATE:

17 November 2009, 18 November 2009

JUDGE:

Cullinane J

ORDER:

Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendants in the sum of $432,297

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – PERSONAL INJURY – ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES – where plaintiff’s cause of action admitted – where the plaintiff claims damages for personal injuries – where the plaintiff was injured by a vehicle driven by the first defendant – where the plaintiff sustained injury to her shoulder and cervical spine – whether the injuries have impaired the plaintiff’s capacity to work – whether plaintiff entitled to gratuitous damages for past and future care

Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld), s 59
Civil Liability Regulation 2003 (Qld), s 4

Kriz v King [2007] 1 Qd R 327; [2006] QCA 351, cited
CSR Ltd v Eddie (2005) 222 ALR 1; [2005] HCA 64, cited
Sullivan v Gordon (1999) 47 NSWLR 319, cited

COUNSEL:

P Lafferty for the plaintiff
A Philp SC for the first and second defendants

SOLICITORS:

Roati & Firth Lawyers for the plaintiff
Sciacca’s Lawyers and Consultants for the first and second defendants

The plaintiff claims damages for personal injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident on 4 October 2004.

Her cause of action is admitted. She was born on 13 February 1971.

She was injured when a vehicle driven by the first defendant collided with the rear of a vehicle driven by the plaintiff which was stationary at the time of the collision.

I am satisfied that the plaintiff sustained soft tissue injury to the cervical spine and a right shoulder injury with partial thickness rotator cuff tendon tear.

She was not hospitalised. She attended a chiropractor apparently being able to take advantage of an appointment already held by a friend. She had a number of chiropractic attendances and subsequently physiotherapy and massage treatment. Notwithstanding this treatment the plaintiff has continued to suffer symptoms in the cervical spine and in the right shoulder and right arm.

In her statement, exhibit 3, she sets out the various complaints which she has in her spine and in her shoulder and arm. The pain is constant but varies in intensity. She has had some acute episodes of pain which have required medical treatment and in one case, hospitalisation.

There is a substantial dispute between the medical specialists called on behalf of each party. It is the plaintiff's case that she suffers a significant disability of the shoulder and cervical spine, the combined effects of which have destroyed or greatly impaired her capacity to work. The defendants' case is that she has no ongoing disability of any significance and…

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 Leonardi v Payne

Details

AGLC: Leonardi v Payne [2009] QSC 382
Case: [2009] QSC 382
Decision Date: 26 November 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Leonardi v Payne involved a claim for damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff, Mrs. Leonardi, who was injured in a car accident caused by the first defendant, Mr. Payne. The plaintiff alleged that she sustained injuries to her shoulder and cervical spine and claimed damages for past and future care, as well as gratuitous damages due to the impact on her capacity to work. The matter proceeded to trial before the Supreme Court of New South Wales, with the defendants admitting liability for the accident.

The primary legal issue before the court was the quantum of damages the plaintiff was entitled to for her injuries. The court had to assess the extent of the injuries, their impact on the plaintiff's ability to work, and the appropriate compensation for past and future care. The plaintiff argued that the injuries had significantly impaired her capacity to work, while the defendants contended that the injuries were not as severe as claimed.

In delivering judgment, the court found that the plaintiff's injuries were genuine and had indeed impaired her capacity to work. The court considered medical evidence and expert opinions in determining the appropriate level of compensation. The court awarded the plaintiff $432,297 in damages, reflecting the severity of her injuries and the impact on her ability to work. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to both past and future care costs, as well as gratuitous damages for the impairment of her earning capacity.

The final orders of the court were that judgment be entered in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants, with damages in the sum of $432,297. The plaintiff was thus awarded compensation for her injuries and the impact on her capacity to work, as determined by the court.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendants in the sum of $432,297

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.

CITATION:	Leonardi v Payne & Anor [2009] QSC 382
PARTIES:	SUSAN MAREE LEONARDI (plaintiff) v CLINTON JAMES PAYNE (first defendant) ALLIANZ AUSTRALIA INSURANCE LIMITED ACN 000 122 850 (second defendant)
FILE NO:	SC No 868 of 2007
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Personal Injury – Quantum
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Townsville
DELIVERED ON:	26 November 2009
DELIVERED AT:	Townsville
HEARING DATE:	17 November 2009, 18 November 2009
JUDGE:	Cullinane J
ORDER:	Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendants in the sum of $432,297
CATCHWORDS:	TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – PERSONAL INJURY – ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES – where plaintiff’s cause of action admitted – where the plaintiff claims damages for personal injuries – where the plaintiff was injured by a vehicle driven by the first defendant – where the plaintiff sustained injury to her shoulder and cervical spine – whether the injuries have impaired the plaintiff’s capacity to work – whether plaintiff entitled to gratuitous damages for past and future care Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld), s 59 Civil Liability Regulation 2003 (Qld), s 4 Kriz v King [2007] 1 Qd R 327; [2006] QCA 351, cited CSR Ltd v Eddie (2005) 222 ALR 1; [2005] HCA 64, cited Sullivan v Gordon (1999) 47 NSWLR 319, cited
COUNSEL:	P Lafferty for the plaintiff A Philp SC for the first and second defendants
SOLICITORS:	Roati & Firth Lawyers for the plaintiff Sciacca’s Lawyers and Consultants for the first and second defendants