Miles v Miles

[2000] QCA 415

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Miles v Miles & Ors [2000] QCA 415

PARTIES:

CARMEL MARY MILES
(plaintiff/respondent)
v
BRIAN DAVID MILES
(first defendant/first appellant)
ANGIE STAVROS PELECHOS
(second defendant/second appellant)
SUNCORP INSURANCE & FINANCE
(third defendant/third appellant)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 10042 of 1999
SC No 178 of 1996

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Rockhampton

DELIVERED ON:

10 October 2000

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

8 September 2000

JUDGES:

McPherson JA, Moynihan SJA and Atkinson J
Joint reasons for judgment of Moynihan SJA and Atkinson J; separate reasons of McPherson JA, concurring as to the orders made.

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed.  Appellants to pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal to be agreed or assessed.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE DAMAGES – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – assessment of damages for personal injuries – plaintiff/respondent sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident - whether damages awarded at trial were manifestly excessive – whether trial judge acted on a wrong principle of law – whether trial judge mistaken as to the facts – whether failure at first instance to sufficiently take into account plaintiff/respondent’s subsequent back condition when assessing damages

Brown v Hale, Appeal No 140 of 1994, 3 February 1995, followed
Miller v Jennings (1954) 92 CLR 190, referred to
Purkess v Crittenden (1965) 114 CLR 164, referred to
Queensland University of Technology v Davies, Appeal No 3691 of 1997, 5 December 1997, referred to
Watts v Rake (1960) 108 CLR 158, referred to

COUNSEL:

DVC McMeekin SC, with WLB McCarthy, for the appellants
FG Forde for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Grant & Simpson for the appellants
Quinn & Scattini for the respondent

1. McPHERSON JA:  I have read and agree with the reasons of Moynihan SJA and Atkinson J.  The appeal should be dismissed with costs as stated by their Honours.

1. MOYNIHAN SJA and ATKINSON J:  The defendants appeal against an award of $410,607.60 damages for personal injuries suffered by the plaintiff in a motor vehicle accident.  A cross-appeal was abandoned.  The appellants’ complaint essentially is that the damages are manifestly excessive because the trial judge failed to give proper weight to matters unrelated to the accident; or (perhaps more accurately) that any consequences of the defendants’ negligence were overwhelmed by the effect of unrelated conditions from which the plaintiff suffered.

1. The plaintiff was born on 9 September 1959.  She suffered the injuries for which she is entitled to be compensated by the defendants on 30 September 1994. 

1. The plaintiff was qualified as an enrolled nurse and she intended to upgrade to registered nurse.  It seems that she worked at times as a casual pharmacy assistant.

1. The plaintiff presented at trial as apparently settled into the role of an invalid whose husband was her full-time carer.  The weight of the medical evidence at the trial was that the drug regime which the plaintiff followed was excessive and ought be reduced.

1. A…