Morrison v Hudson

Case [2005] QSC 290


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Morrison v Hudson & Anor [2005] QSC 290

PARTIES:

SCOTT ANDREW MORRISON
(plaintiff)
v
JAMEY WAATA HUDSON
(first defendant)
and
ALLIANZ AUSTRALIA INSURANCE LIMITED
(second defendant)

FILE NO/S:

SC No 319 of 2005

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Claim

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

14 October 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Townsville

HEARING DATE:

10 October 2005; 11 October 2005

JUDGE:

Cullinane J

ORDER:

Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendants in the sum of $159,775

CATCHWORDS:

NEGLIGENCE – ROAD ACCIDENT CASES – LIABILITY OF DRIVERS OF VEHICLES – where the plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident – where liability was admitted

DAMAGES – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES – where plaintiff engaged in kangaroo shooting and trapping pigs –whether injuries resulted in an impairment of the plaintiff’s earning capacity – whether specific loss identifiable

Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld)
Civil Liability Regulation 2003 (Qld)

COUNSEL:

K Fleming QC, with A Collins, for the plaintiff
M Glen for the defendants

SOLICITORS:

Dempseys Solicitors for the plaintiff
McInnes Wilson for the defendants

  1. The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 10 December 2002.  His cause of action is admitted.

  1. He was born on 28 December 1973 and is married with three children aged three, two and a little under six months.

  1. He was educated to a Grade 10 standard at Townsville.  Since entering the workforce he has been in employment in manual tasks such as labouring and boning at a meatworks.

  1. For a number of years prior to the accident he had been engaged in kangaroo shooting and trapping pigs.

  1. The evidence is a little unsatisfactory on the subject but it would seem that at some time prior to the collision he had commenced sub-contracting with a contractor to the Australian Defence Forces to control animals at Dotswood Station.  This required him to trap pigs and to destroy them.  He was able to take any pigs of a sufficient size as to be capable of being used for meat and to keep the proceeds.  This required the carcasses to be brought to a chilling unit in Townsville.

  1. This contract was a yearly contract and he has continued to obtain it, year by year, since the accident.  In addition he obtained income from shooting kangaroos.  He also had a permit with the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service to trap pigs on the Townsville Common and engaged in some pig shooting on his own where the pigs were hunted by dogs.  He had not long prior to the accident obtained a casual part time position at the Rowes Bay Golf Club which involved heavy work involving the spreading of sand physically on the greens.  He had done this for a couple of weeks or so prior to the accident and the lost the position following the accident when he was unable to continue doing it.

  1. In the accident he suffered an injury to his right leg.  This would…

Continue reading Morrison v Hudson

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Morrison v Hudson [2005] QSC 290
Case
[2005] QSC 290
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Morrison v Hudson, the plaintiff, Mr Morrison, brought a claim against Mr Hudson, the driver of the vehicle that collided with the plaintiff’s vehicle. The collision resulted in injuries to Mr Morrison, who sought compensation for the damages incurred. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia. Liability for the accident was admitted by Mr Hudson, leaving only the issue of the amount of damages to be determined.

The court was tasked with determining the measure of damages for Mr Morrison's personal injuries. The plaintiff claimed that his injuries had resulted in an impairment of his earning capacity, specifically impacting his ability to engage in kangaroo shooting and trapping pigs, activities he relied on for income. The court had to assess whether the injuries indeed caused a specific loss identifiable in monetary terms.

The court considered the evidence presented regarding the plaintiff's pre-accident earning capacity and the extent to which his injuries impaired his ability to continue those activities. After evaluating the evidence, the court concluded that the injuries had indeed impaired the plaintiff's capacity to earn income from the aforementioned activities. The court awarded damages to the plaintiff, acknowledging the specific loss attributable to the accident.

The court's final order was a judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $159,775, reflecting the assessed damages for the injuries sustained in the accident.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendants in the sum of $159,775

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.