Matcham v Dodge - [1987] TASSC 108

Serial No B38/1987
List "B"

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Matcham v Dodge [1987] TASSC 108; B38/1987

PARTIES:  MATCHAM
  v
  DODGE

FILE NO/S:  192/1985
DELIVERED ON:  24 September 1987
JUDGMENT OF:  Nettlefold J

Judgment Number: B38/1987
Number of paragraphs: 182

Serial No B38/1987
List "B"
File No 192/1985

MATCHAM v DODGE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT NETTLEFOLD J

24 September 1987

Assessment of damages for personal injuries suffered by the plaintiff in a motor vehicle collision on 27 September 1984.

The plaintiff is a station officer–administration in the Ambulance Service of Tasmania. He was born on 28 September 1945 and is now almost 42 years.

After the accident he was taken to the Royal Hobart Hospital by ambulance. It was a painful trip. He was kept under observation at the hospital for a few hours. The following injuries and complaints were noted:–

(1)       laceration distal to right patella;
(2)       abrasion and contusion to right orbital region;
(3)       abrasion to left side of face;
(4)       laceration under chin;
(5)       pain lumbar region in back radiating in a "circle" to anterior abdomen;
(6)       soreness from the back across the chest, headaches and stiffness from the waist up;
(7)       thoracic region seat belt abrasion;
(8)       abrasion to right forehead;
(9)       abrasion right clavicle.

The cut under the chin was stitched, a cervical collar was applied and, generally, he was given basic attention.

The plaintiff complains that he suffered severe and wide ranging pain while at the hospital, there were other apparent injuries not noted in the above list and he was emotionally upset and crying.

He was discharged and transported to his home by ambulance. At his home he was carried upstairs and put on the lounge and made as comfortable as possible with cushions. He was still in pain. He complains that the only way he could move about was by crawling. He spent an uncomfortable and restless night.

The following morning his doctor arranged for his admission to St Helen's Private Hospital where he remained until 13 October 1984. At this hospital the following were noted:–

(1)       extensive bruising across face and right eye;
(2)       bruises chest and left hip;
(3)       one suture had been inserted in his chin at the Royal Hobart Hospital;
(4)       cut on right knee;
(5)       very stiff and sore across pelvis, neck and lower spine.

After x–rays were taken the decision was that he had suffered a fractured sternum and a compression fracture of the 12th thoracic vertebra.

The treatment was bed rest, physiotherapy, pain control and basic nursing. His treatment was supervised by Dr O'Halloran and the orthopaedic surgeon, Mr Turner. A brace was fitted after a few days. Naturally, adjusting to living in a brace was far from easy. But, speaking generally, a perusal of the notes leaves the impression that he slept well and the pain was kept at a tolerable and moderate level. It should be mentioned that the hospital notes refer to a show of emotion. The plaintiff gave evidence that, while…

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 Matcham v Dodge

Details

AGLC: Matcham v Dodge [1987] TASSC 108
Case: [1987] TASSC 108
Decision Date: 24 September 1987

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Matcham v Dodge, the Supreme Court of Tasmania was asked to determine the appropriate amount of damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff in a motor vehicle accident. The plaintiff, who was a station officer-administration in the Ambulance Service of Tasmania, suffered multiple injuries including a fractured sternum and a compression fracture of the 12th thoracic vertebra. The court considered the impact of these injuries on the plaintiff's ability to work and engage in various activities, as well as the emotional distress experienced by the plaintiff and his family. After a thorough analysis of the evidence, the court assessed the general damages at $97,000, which included $25,000 for pain, suffering, and loss of amenities, and $72,000 for future economic loss. The court also awarded specific damages for lost salary, the cost of an orthopaedic chair, and other expenses, bringing the total damages to $103,961.28.

Orders