Lesley Anne Hunt v ANAGIRO Protonotarios

Case [2007] ACTSC 16


LESLEY ANNE HUNT v ANAGIRO PROTONOTARIOS & ANOR
[2007] ACTSC 16 (12 March 2007)

NEGLIGENCE – causation – motor vehicle accidents in 1987 and 2001 – reduction of damages for first accident to take account of injuries in supervening accident.
DAMAGES – personal injury – motor vehicle collision – injury to cervical spine – neck pain and headaches – no issue of principle.

State Government Insurance Commission v Oakley (1990) Aust Torts Reps 81-003, followed
Donaldson v Canberra Tyre Service [2004] ACTSC 26, considered
Cairns v Woolworths [2005] ACTSC 95, considered

No.  SC 775 of 1997

Judge:             Master Harper
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date:              12 March 2007

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE  )
  )  No.  SC 775 of 1997
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY  )

BETWEEN:LESLEY ANNE HUNT

Plaintiff

AND:ANAGIRO PROTONOTARIOS

First Defendant

AND:AMY LEENDERS

Second Defendant

ORDER

Judge:  Master Harper
Date:  12 March 2007
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

Judgment be entered for the plaintiff against the first defendant in the sum of $368,951.44.

  1. The plaintiff commenced this action claiming damages for personal injury arising out of two motor vehicle collisions, on 11 November 1987 and 14 May 2001. Shortly before the hearing the plaintiff and the second defendant reached agreement, and consent judgment has since been entered against the second defendant for $86,569.00 plus costs.

The plaintiff’s evidence

  1. The plaintiff was born on 16 April 1954. She completed year twelve at school and worked for a year at a department store in Batemans Bay. In 1972 she moved to Canberra and joined the Department of the Army as a public servant. In 1974 she married a soldier, Kingsley Hunt. They had various moves within Australia over the years of his army service. Since March 1977 the plaintiff has herself been a member of the Army Reserve. She has two children, a daughter aged almost 30 and a son of 27.

  1. During the 1980s the plaintiff served with Sydney University Regiment, which held a sixteen-day camp each January. During the 1985 camp the plaintiff was working in a group operating targets on a rifle range. A rectangular metal target frame fell and struck her head. The frame was about 2 metres high and 1 metre wide. She felt giddy and nauseous. A lump formed on her head. A few hours after the accident she was taken to Royal Canberra Hospital. She was x-rayed and placed under observation for several hours. She had severe headaches for a number of weeks. Her headaches and neck pain continued throughout the year. At the next Sydney University Regiment camp in January 1986, she required medical attention for headaches.

  1. In October 1986 the plaintiff rejoined the Public Service. With the exception of a period of leave without pay from 1991 to 1993, she has worked there full-time since.

  1. On 11 November 1987, she was driving south on Marcus Clarke Street, Canberra City. The first defendant was driving East on Rudd Street and drove through a give-way sign. The…

Continue reading Lesley Anne Hunt v ANAGIRO Protonotarios

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Lesley Anne Hunt v ANAGIRO Protonotarios [2007] ACTSC 16
Case
[2007] ACTSC 16
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Lesley Anne Hunt against ANAGIRO Protonotarios was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, Lesley Anne Hunt, sought damages for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident in 1987, exacerbated by injuries from a subsequent accident in 2001. The defendant, ANAGIRO Protonotarios, was responsible for the 2001 accident. The primary dispute involved the extent to which damages for the initial accident should be reduced to account for the injuries from the later accident.

The court was tasked with determining whether the injuries from the 2001 accident warranted a reduction in the damages awarded for the 1987 accident. This issue raised questions about the principles of causation and the impact of supervening events on the assessment of damages. The court had to consider whether the injuries from the 2001 accident were sufficiently severe to warrant a substantial reduction in the damages awarded for the 1987 accident, and if so, what the appropriate reduction should be.

The court concluded that there was no issue of principle requiring a significant reduction in the damages for the initial accident. It found that the injuries from the 2001 accident did not warrant a substantial decrease in the damages for the 1987 accident. The court awarded damages to the plaintiff, taking into account the injuries from both accidents. The total sum of $368,951.44 was determined as the appropriate compensation for the plaintiff's injuries and losses.

The final order of the court was to enter judgment in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $368,951.44. This amount represented the total damages awarded for the injuries sustained in both the 1987 and 2001 accidents, with an appropriate adjustment made for the impact of the supervening accident on the assessment of damages.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgment be entered for the plaintiff against the first defendant in the sum of $368,951.44.

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.