Miller v Hawkins - [1999] NSWSC 1163

CITATION: Miller v Hawkins [1999] NSWSC 1163

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Civil

FILE NUMBER(S): 300063/97

HEARING DATE(S): 28/10/99,29/10/99,1/11/99

JUDGMENT DATE:
1 December 1999

PARTIES :

Kathleen Mary Miller (Plt)
Diane Hawkins (Def)

JUDGMENT OF: Newman J

COUNSEL : D T Kennedy SC (Plt)
J P Guihot (Def)

SOLICITORS: Stanger & Clarke (Plt)
Hunt & Hunt (Def)

CATCHWORDS:

DECISION: Assessment only

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
NEWMAN J
WEDNESDAY, 1 DECEMBER 1999
NEWCASTLE: 63/97 - MILLER v HAWKINS
JUDGMENT
1    HIS HONOUR: This is a claim for damages for personal injuries arising out of a motor vehicle accident which happened on 23 July 1996. Breach of duty of care has been admitted by the defendant thus the matter is one for the assessment of damages pursuant to the Motor Accidents Act 1988 should the plaintiff qualify for such damages.
2    Because a breach of duty has been conceded by the defendant it is not necessary for me to examine the circumstances of the accident in great detail. However, it is relevant to note that the accident involved a collision between two motor cars of great severity. Photographs of the plaintiff’s car demonstrate the impaction between the vehicles was one involving considerable force.
3    That the plaintiff suffered injuries in the accident was not the subject of any contest. Such was the force of the impact that her knees had come into contact with the dashboard of the vehicle and her chest came into hard contact with the steering wheel.
4    She was taken from the scene of the accident which was in the Newcastle area, to the John Hunter hospital. At that hospital investigations revealed that she had suffered the following injuries:

1. A fracture of the inferior pole of her right patella.
2. Lacerations and soft tissue injuries to both her knees including trauma to both patella.
3. Soft tissue injuries to her lower back.
4. Soft tissue injuries to her cervical spine.
5. Fracture to her left 6th, 7th, and 8th ribs.
6. Bruising caused by her seat belt to her right shoulder and left breast.
7. Facial bruising.
8. Bruising to her left upper arm.

5    Her immediate treatment involved suturing of the lacerations over her left knee, bed rest and the administration of pain killing medication.
6    She came under the care of her general practitioner, Dr S Cawley and an orthopaedic surgeon, Dr P Berton. Shortly after the accident the plaintiff commenced a regime of physiotherapy which, with certain variations of treatment, has continued to the present day.
7    The plaintiff suffers pain in her neck, low back and both knees. She also commenced to develop headaches. In addition to the physiotherapy program she also undertook supervised hydrotherapy involving flotation, massage and other hydro-therapeutic measures.
8    In September 1996 she was referred to a rehabilitation specialist, a Dr C Hollo in relation to the pain she was suffering in her neck and low back. Essentially, the plaintiff has been under the care of…

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 Miller v Hawkins

Details

AGLC: Miller v Hawkins [1999] NSWSC 1163
Case: [1999] NSWSC 1163
Decision Date: 1 December 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Miller v Hawkins involved a claim for damages for personal injuries arising from a motor vehicle accident on 23 July 1996. The plaintiff, Kathleen Mary Miller, sought compensation from the defendant, Diane Hawkins, who had admitted to a breach of duty of care. The primary legal issue for the court to decide was the assessment of damages under the Motor Accidents Act 1988, considering the extent of the plaintiff's injuries and their impact on her life.

The court found that the plaintiff had suffered significant injuries including a fracture of the right patella, lacerations and soft tissue injuries to both knees, soft tissue injuries to the lower back and cervical spine, fractures to the left ribs, and various bruises. The plaintiff underwent multiple surgeries and treatments for her injuries, including physiotherapy and hydrotherapy. The court also noted that the plaintiff experienced psychological issues, such as panic attacks when travelling in a car, and cosmetic disfigurement due to scarring on her knees.

In assessing the damages, the court awarded the plaintiff $136,500 for non-economic loss, reflecting her loss of enjoyment of life and future pain. The court also awarded $67,490.95 for out-of-pocket expenses, $32,697.52 for past wage loss, and $150,000 for future economic loss, considering the uncertainty of her future employment prospects. Additionally, the court awarded $164,168.10 for future medical expenses, which included costs for potential surgeries, specialist visits, physiotherapy, and other treatments.

The final orders were deferred pending the parties verifying the calculations of the damages and costs.

Orders