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, citedCOUNSEL:
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
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
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.
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
- AGLC
- Martin v Andrews [2016] QSC 20
- Case
- [2016] QSC 20
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.