McKay v Armstrong - [2020] QDC 127

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

McKay v Armstrong & Anor [2020] QDC 127

PARTIES:

JESSIE FAY ANN MARGARET ROSE MCKAY

(plaintiff)

v

CRAIG ROBERT ARMSTRONG

(first defendant)

and

RACQ INSURANCE LIMITED (ACN 009 704 152)

(second defendant)

FILE NO/S:

99 of 2017

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Claim

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court of Queensland, Cairns

DELIVERED ON:

10 June 2020

DELIVERED AT:

Cairns

HEARING DATE:

19, 20 & 21 May 2020

JUDGE:

Morzone QC DCJ

ORDERS:

1.   Judgment to the plaintiff against the defendants for $76,123.73.

2.   I will hear the parties further on the issue of costs.

3.   Unless either party applies for, or the parties otherwise agree to, a different costs order within 14 days of this judgment, I will also order that the defendants pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceeding (including reserved costs) to be assessed on the standard basis.

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – motor vehicle accident – where plaintiff was injured in car collision – where liability admitted.

DAMAGES – MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT – MEASURE OF DAMAGE – PERSONAL INJURIES – multiple injuries claimed – credit of plaintiff – where plaintiff stoic and reliable – nature and extent of injuries caused by the accident – where physical and psychiatric injuries present – where soft tissue injury, minor fracture or minor internal organ injury present – where psychiatric injury not significant cause of psychiatric condition – assessment of damages.

Legislation
Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) s 55, 59
Civil Liability Regulation 2003 (Qld) schedule 4

Cases

Allianz Australia Insurance Limited v McCarthy [2012] QCA 312
Chappel v Hart (1998) 195 CLR 232

Commonwealth v Amann Aviation Pty Ltd (1991) 174 CLR 64

Graham v Baker (1961) 106 CLR 340

Malec v J C Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638
March v E & MH Stramare Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506

Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission (1995) 182 CLR 1

COUNSEL:

R J Armstrong for the plaintiff

G C O’Driscoll for the defendants

SOLICITORS:

Roati Legal for the plaintiff

Quinlan Miller & Treston Lawyers for the defendants

SUMMARY

The plaintiff claims damages against a negligent driver who caused her injuries and consequential loss and damage in a car crash that occurred in the afternoon of Valentine’s Day in 2014 when she and her partner were returning from an outing.

At around 4pm on 14 February 2014 the plaintiff was the front seat passenger of a Holden Commodore driven by her partner. They were travelling north along Woolcock Street in Townsville when the first defendant, driving a Holden Clubsport, lost control of his car and collided with the Holden Commodore.

There is no dispute about liability, and the case is confined to the quantum of damages. The determinative issues in the proceeding are: What is the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s injuries caused by the accident? And what is the assessment of those damages?

I have found that the plaintiff suffered a predominant injury to her shoulder region with…

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 McKay v Armstrong

Details

AGLC: McKay v Armstrong [2020] QDC 127
Case: [2020] QDC 127
Decision Date: 10 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, McKay, brought an action against Armstrong, the defendant, in relation to a motor vehicle accident in which McKay was injured. The parties have admitted that Armstrong is liable for the accident and the court was tasked with determining the appropriate amount of damages to be awarded to McKay. Armstrong argued that the injuries claimed by McKay were not significant and that the damages sought were excessive. McKay argued that the injuries were significant and that the damages claimed were reasonable. The court was required to determine the nature and extent of the injuries caused by the accident and to assess the appropriate amount of damages to be awarded to McKay.

The court considered the evidence and submissions of both parties and found that McKay had sustained a soft tissue injury, a minor fracture, and a minor internal organ injury as a result of the accident. The court also found that McKay had a pre-existing psychiatric condition, but that the accident was not a significant cause of that condition. The court assessed the damages based on the nature and extent of the injuries caused by the accident, and took into account McKay's stoic and reliable character. The court found that the damages claimed by McKay were reasonable and awarded damages in the amount of $76,123.73.

The court also considered the issue of costs and ordered that the defendants pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceeding (including reserved costs) to be assessed on the standard basis, unless either party applies for, or the parties otherwise agree to, a different costs order within 14 days of this judgment. The court will hear the parties further on the issue of costs.

In summary, the court found in favour of the plaintiff and awarded damages in the amount of $76,123.73. The court also ordered that the defendants pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceeding (including reserved costs) to be assessed on the standard basis, unless otherwise agreed by the parties or ordered by the court.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Judgment to the plaintiff against the defendants for $76,123.73.

2. I will hear the parties further on the issue of costs.

3. Unless either party applies for, or the parties otherwise agree to, a different costs order within 14 days of this judgment, I will also order that the defendants pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceeding (including reserved costs) to be assessed on the standard basis.

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:	McKay v Armstrong & Anor [2020] QDC 127
PARTIES:	JESSIE FAY ANN MARGARET ROSE MCKAY (plaintiff) v CRAIG ROBERT ARMSTRONG (first defendant) and RACQ INSURANCE LIMITED (ACN 009 704 152) (second defendant)
FILE NO/S:	99 of 2017
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Claim
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court of Queensland, Cairns
DELIVERED ON:	10 June 2020
DELIVERED AT:	Cairns
HEARING DATE:	19, 20 & 21 May 2020
JUDGE:	Morzone QC DCJ
ORDERS:	1. Judgment to the plaintiff against the defendants for $76,123.73. 2. I will hear the parties further on the issue of costs. 3. Unless either party applies for, or the parties otherwise agree to, a different costs order within 14 days of this judgment, I will also order that the defendants pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceeding (including reserved costs) to be assessed on the standard basis.
CATCHWORDS:	TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – motor vehicle accident – where plaintiff was injured in car collision – where liability admitted. DAMAGES – MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT – MEASURE OF DAMAGE – PERSONAL INJURIES – multiple injuries claimed – credit of plaintiff – where plaintiff stoic and reliable – nature and extent of injuries caused by the accident – where physical and psychiatric injuries present – where soft tissue injury, minor fracture or minor internal organ injury present – where psychiatric injury not significant cause of psychiatric condition – assessment of damages.
Legislation Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) s 55, 59 Civil Liability Regulation 2003 (Qld) schedule 4 Cases Allianz Australia Insurance Limited v McCarthy [2012] QCA 312 Chappel v Hart (1998) 195 CLR 232 Commonwealth v Amann Aviation Pty Ltd (1991) 174 CLR 64 Graham v Baker (1961) 106 CLR 340 Malec v J C Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638 March v E & MH Stramare Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506 Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission (1995) 182 CLR 1
COUNSEL:	R J Armstrong for the plaintiff G C O’Driscoll for the defendants
SOLICITORS:	Roati Legal for the plaintiff Quinlan Miller & Treston Lawyers for the defendants