Martin v Rowling - [2004] QSC 210

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Martin v Rowling & Anor [2004] QSC 210
PARTIES: JULANNE MARY MARTIN
(plaintiff)
v
HELEN ROWLING
(first defendant)
and
SUNCORP METWAY INSURANCE LIMITED (ACN
075 695 966)
(second defendant)
FILE NO: S 3606 of 2000
DIVISION: Trial
PROCEEDING: Application
ORIGINATING
COURT: Supreme Court Brisbane
DELIVERED ON: 9 June 2004
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 20 February 2004
JUDGE: Douglas J
ORDER: Judgment for the plaintiff for $330,668.39
CATCHWORDS: DAMAGES - Measure and Remoteness of Damages in
Actions for Tort - Measure of Damages - Personal Injuries -
Prevailing Standards of General Damages – In general –
Whiplash injury to neck and associated injuries – Degree of
persistence of symptoms
TORTS – Negligence - Essentials of action for negligence – Damage – General – Assessment of damage – Where there is no significant decrease in the plaintiff’s ability to work in an occupation for which she is well qualified
COUNSEL: Mr G R Mullins for the plaintiff
Mr R V Hanson QC with him Mr R F King-Scott for the
defendants
SOLICITORS: McInnes Wilson Lawyers for the plaintiff
Dibbs Barker Gosling for the defendants

DOUGLAS J: The plaintiff, Julanne Martin, was involved in a motor vehicle accident on 11 May 1998 where she suffered a whiplash injury to the neck with an associated injury to the brachial plexus. She also claims to have suffered injuries to the right hip and pelvis, the right shoulder, the right scapula and collar bone, the lumbo-sacral spine, a major depressive disorder and a pain disorder arising out of the accident. The defendants’ liability for the accident is admitted.
It was the type of injury that, in many circumstances, may have settled within 2 or 3 months. The controversial issues in this case are the extent to which a disability arising from her injuries still persists with Ms Martin and the effect it has had on her earning capacity. An associated issue is whether the cessation of her employment in the pharmaceutical industry with Merck Sharp and Dohme (“MSD”) on 28 June 1998, shortly after the accident, was because of her injuries or because of dissatisfaction with her performance by her employer. Much of the evidence in the trial related to the latter issue. On the view I have taken, however, the resolution of that dispute does not affect the assessment of her damages to any great degree. It is clear, whether or not she was dismissed from MSD because of dissatisfaction with her work or because of the accident, that she has a very good work history and, in spite of the accident, retains a significant capacity to earn income. The main real issue is the continuing extent of her physical disability and its effect on her ability to work full-time.
Ms Martin was born on 7 May 1960, had just turned 38 at the time of the accident and is now 44. She completed year 12 in 1977 and worked in a…

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 Martin v Rowling

Details

AGLC: Martin v Rowling [2004] QSC 210
Case: [2004] QSC 210
Decision Date: 9 June 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Martin v Rowling involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Martin, and the defendant, Rowling, regarding the amount of general damages Martin was entitled to receive following a motor vehicle accident. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Martin was involved in a car accident that resulted in whiplash and associated injuries, and sought compensation for the pain and suffering caused by these injuries.

The court had to determine the appropriate amount of general damages Martin should receive, considering the prevailing standards for such injuries. This required the court to assess the degree of Martin’s injuries, the impact of those injuries on his life, and the appropriate quantum of damages in light of previous cases and guidelines. The court also had to consider the defendant's argument regarding the extent and severity of the injuries sustained.

The court found that Martin's injuries were significant and had a considerable impact on his quality of life. It considered the nature and extent of the injuries, the duration of the pain and suffering, and the effect on Martin's daily activities and overall well-being. The court also took into account relevant precedents and guidelines for assessing damages in similar cases. Based on this assessment, the court determined that the plaintiff was entitled to an award of $330,668.39 in general damages.

The court ordered judgment in favour of Martin for the sum of $330,668.39, representing the appropriate amount of general damages for his injuries and the associated pain and suffering.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgment for the plaintiff for $330,668.39

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:	Martin v Rowling & Anor [2004] QSC 210
PARTIES:	JULANNE MARY MARTIN (plaintiff) v HELEN ROWLING (first defendant) and SUNCORP METWAY INSURANCE LIMITED (ACN 075 695 966) (second defendant)
FILE NO:	S 3606 of 2000
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING
COURT:	Supreme Court Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	9 June 2004
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 20 February 2004
JUDGE:	Douglas J
ORDER:	Judgment for the plaintiff for $330,668.39
CATCHWORDS:	DAMAGES - Measure and Remoteness of Damages in Actions for Tort - Measure of Damages - Personal Injuries - Prevailing Standards of General Damages – In general – Whiplash injury to neck and associated injuries – Degree of persistence of symptoms
TORTS – Negligence - Essentials of action for negligence – Damage – General – Assessment of damage – Where there is no significant decrease in the plaintiff’s ability to work in an occupation for which she is well qualified
COUNSEL:	Mr G R Mullins for the plaintiff Mr R V Hanson QC with him Mr R F King-Scott for the defendants
SOLICITORS:	McInnes Wilson Lawyers for the plaintiff Dibbs Barker Gosling for the defendants