Martin v Andrews

Case [2016] QSC 20


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Martin v Andrews & Anor [2016] QSC 20

PARTIES:

JOSHUA ALFRED MARTIN
(Plaintiff)

v

HAMISH LOUIS ANDREWS
(First Defendant)

And

AAI LIMITED ABN 48 005 297 807
(Second Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

S684/2013

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

19 February 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Rockhampton

HEARING DATE:

2, 3 February 2016. Last submissions and evidence received 4 February 2016

JUDGE:

McMeekin J

ORDER:

1. Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $1,282,572.10

CATCHWORDS:

DAMAGES – MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where liability admitted – where plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident – where plaintiff suffered soft tissue damage to his neck and lower back – where plaintiff alleges ongoing pain due to his injuries –where plaintiff’s previous employment was physically demanding –  whether the pain is at the level described by the plaintiff - whether the plaintiff has suffered loss of earning capacity – whether the plaintiff requires ongoing therapy for his injuries

Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld)

Civil Liability Regulation 2003 (Qld)

Adams v Ascot Iron Foundry Pty Ltd (1968) 72 SR (NSW) 120, cited
Allwood v Wilson& Anor [2011] QSC 180, followed
Anodising & Aluminium Finishers v Coleman [2002] 1 Qd R 141; (1999) QCA 467, cited
Bugge v REB Engineering Pty Ltd [1999] 2 Qd R 227; (1998) QSC 185, cited
Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd v Fardous [2015] NSWCA 82, cited
Fox v Wood (1981) 148 CLR 438; [1981] HCA 41, cited
Hayman v Forbes (1975) 13 SASR 225, cited
Heywood v Commercial Electrical Pty Ltd [2013] QCA 270, cited
Kealley v Jones [1979] 1 NSWLR 723, cited
Liesboch, Dredger v Edison SS [1933] AC 449 (HL), cited
Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission (1995) 182 CLR 1; [1995] HCA 5, cited
National Instruments Pty Ltd v Gilles (1975) 49 ALJR 349, cited
Stauffer v Hanley (Unreported – NSW Court of Appeal – 6 April 1978), cited
Thomas v O’Shea (1989) ATR 80-251, cited

COUNSEL:

G Crow QC and D Cormack for the plaintiff

W Campbell for the defendants

SOLICITORS:

Hall Payne Lawyers for the plaintiff

Quinlan Miller & Treston for the defendants

  1. McMeekin J: The plaintiff, Joshua Alfred Martin, claims damages for personal injuries suffered on 1 July 2011 in a motor vehicle accident.  Liability is admitted.  I am required to assess damages.  

The Injuries & Issues

  1. It is not in issue that in the accident Mr Martin suffered soft tissue injuries to his neck and lower back. Mr Martin says that he suffers ongoing discomfort and pain sufficient to disable him from significant manual labour, a feature of his life till the time of the subject accident.

  1. An MRI examination carried out on 3 November 2011 demonstrated a disc extrusion at L5/S1 level with “minor effacement of the thecal sac.”[1] Dr Halliday, an…

Continue reading Martin v Andrews

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Martin v Andrews [2016] QSC 20
Case
[2016] QSC 20
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, Martin, the plaintiff, brought an action against Andrews, the defendant, for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident. The defendant admitted liability for the accident, which resulted in the plaintiff suffering soft tissue damage to his neck and lower back, as well as ongoing pain. The court had to determine whether the plaintiff's pain was as severe as alleged, whether the plaintiff had suffered a loss of earning capacity, and whether the plaintiff required ongoing therapy for his injuries.

The court considered the evidence provided by the plaintiff, including expert medical opinions and the plaintiff's own testimony. The court found that the plaintiff's pain was genuine and at the level described. The court also considered the plaintiff's previous employment, which was physically demanding, and found that the plaintiff had suffered a loss of earning capacity. The court further found that the plaintiff required ongoing therapy for his injuries.

The court awarded the plaintiff damages in the sum of $1,282,572.10. This amount included compensation for pain and suffering, loss of earning capacity, and the cost of ongoing therapy. The court emphasised the importance of considering the individual circumstances of each case when determining the appropriate level of damages for personal injuries.

The final orders of the court were that judgment be entered for the plaintiff in the sum of $1,282,572.10, plus interest and costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $1,282,572.10

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.