Murphy v Turner-Jones - [2022] QSC 40

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Murphy v Turner-Jones & Anor [2022] QSC 40

PARTIES:

BRETT LESLIE MURPHY

(plaintiff)

v
LEAH TURNER-JONES

(first defendant)

ALLIANZ AUSTRALIA LIMITED
(second defendant)

FILE NO/S:

SC No 1093 of 2020

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Rockhampton

DELIVERED ON:

31 March 2022

DELIVERED AT:

Rockhampton

HEARING DATE:

28 February, 1 & 2 March 2022

JUDGE:

Crow J

ORDER:

1. Judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant for $200,776.07.

CATCHWORDS:

DAMAGES – ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES IN TORT – PERSONAL INJURY – METHOD OF ASSESSMENT GENERALLY - where the plaintiff suffered physical injuries in a motor vehicle accident – where liability is admitted by the defendant – where the plaintiff claims damages for personal injuries arising from the motor vehicle accident – where damages are assessed under the Civil Liability Act 2003.

Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld), s 52, s 59

Civil Liability Regulation 2014 (Qld), Sch 3, Sch 4

Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld), s 41, s 51

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 155

Allwood v Wilson & Anor [2011] QSC 180.

Hart v Consolidated Meat Group Pty Ltd [2005] QCA 421.

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

Nucifora & Another v AAI Limited [2013] QSC 338.

O’Connor v SP Bray Ltd (1937) 56 CLR 464.

Paul v Rendell (1981) 55 ALJR 371.

COUNSEL:

The plaintiff appeared on his own behalf

Tony Arnold for the first and second defendants

SOLICITORS:

The plaintiff appeared on his own behalf

McInnes Wilson Solicitors for the first and second defendants

The plaintiff, Brett Murphy, claims damages for personal injury caused in a motor vehicle accident on 12 September 2017 in Rockhampton. The defendants admit liability. Mr Murphy’s case is that he has suffered from serious injuries in the nature of “…an out of position whiplash injury and polytrauma at each level of his spine and pelvis”[1] and a “…coup contrecoup injury”.[2] Mr Murphy particularises a claim for damages in the amount of $10,249,234.
[1]Paragraph 45 of Statement of Claim.
[2]Paragraph 46 of Statement of Claim
The defendants’ case is that the motor vehicle accident involved minimal forces of impact, causing only a “…mild musculoligamentous strain to the cervical spine”,[3] which was transient in nature.[4] The defendants also raise an argument that the plaintiff’s incapacity has been severely impacted by a comorbid mental health illness suffered by Mr Murphy.
[3]Paragraph 28 of Amended Defence.
[4]Paragraph 28 of Amended Defence.
In broad terms, the main issues raised by the parties are the nature, extent and impact of the injuries sustained by Mr Murphy in the motor vehicle accident and the effect of any comorbidity which Mr Murphy suffers from.
Mr Murphy is currently 50 years of age having been born on 21 February 1972. Mr Murphy completed a Year 12 education and subsequently obtained work as a wardsperson in several hospitals. Mr Murphy studied and obtained his Bachelor of Laws degree in 1996 from…

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 Murphy v Turner-Jones

Details

AGLC: Murphy v Turner-Jones [2022] QSC 40
Case: [2022] QSC 40
Decision Date: 31 March 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Mr Murphy, sought damages for personal injury following a motor vehicle accident, which resulted in a minor impact between his taxi and a vehicle driven by the defendant, Ms Turner-Jones. The defendant admitted liability, and the dispute centred on the assessment of damages under the Civil Liability Act 2003. The court had to determine the extent of Mr Murphy's injuries, the causation of his symptoms, and the appropriate amount of damages to award, considering both physical and psychological aspects of his injuries.

The court examined the evidence provided, including Mr Murphy's dash cam footage and medical reports. Dr Fitzpatrick, an orthopaedic surgeon, concluded that Mr Murphy's symptoms did not align with the severity of the accident and suggested the presence of a pain syndrome rather than significant organic pathology. Dr Fitzpatrick also noted the absence of hard signs of radiculopathy and other neurological deficits. The court needed to assess the credibility of Mr Murphy's symptoms and the extent to which psychological factors contributed to his ongoing pain and disability.

After considering the evidence, the court found that Mr Murphy had suffered from a pain syndrome, likely influenced by psychological factors. Despite the absence of significant organic pathology, the court recognised the severity of Mr Murphy's symptoms and their impact on his ability to work. The court awarded Mr Murphy $200,776.07 in damages, reflecting the totality of his injuries and the impact on his life, despite the absence of clear organic pathology.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant for $200,776.07.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Rather, I accept the defendants’ case that the motor vehicle accident was a very low speed, minor impact accident, with minimal damage to both vehicles.[17] Mr Murphy proved this by tendering his taxi dash cam footage of the motor vehicle accident, together with photographs of the damage sustained by his taxi vehicle and the Holden Rodeo being driven by the first defendant.[18] The fact that the impact was minor does not necessarily conclude that Mr Murphy has not suffered from a high level of symptoms of neck or spinal injury. [17]As set out in the Amended Defence, paragraph 22 and 23.[18]Exhibit 2.Medical Evidence Dr Fitzpatrick, an orthopaedic surgeon, examined Mr Murphy on 13 July 2018. In a report dated 20 July 2018,[19] Dr Fitzpatrick recorded that:[20]“Mr Murphy cites a very high level of pain and disability however the MRI scan of his cervical spine fails to show any significant acute organic pathology. The bone scan which one might expect to show increased signal should there have been any occult fractures or significant aggravation of pre-existing arthritic change did not show any significant abnormalities. On examination today the cervical spine had a poorly reproducible range of motion. There were no hard signs to suggest radiculopathy, despite Mr Murphy’s description of pain radiating into the upper arms and some pins and needles from time to time in his hands. In particular there was no wasting of the upper limbs. There was no sensory loss in a dermatomal distribution and there was no loss of relevant reflexes. I note that Mr Murphy has been unable to work for the past ten months because of his symptoms. I would consider this unusual in the absence of any significant organic pathology. My impression today was that Mr Murphy was suffering from a pain syndrome. There is no clear organic pathology in the cervical spine to explain the severity of his ongoing symptoms. He is under the care of a pain specialist which is appropriate.” [19]Exhibit 19. [20]Exhibit 19, page 7. In respect of the cervical spine, Dr Fitzpatrick categorised the cervical spine injury as a diagnosis related estimate (DRE) Category 1 with 0% impairment. Dr Fitzpatrick did record:[21]“All in all Mr Murphy says that his progress is slow but he does feel that he has made some significant improvements with pain management. He estimates that he is 50% back to normal.”[21]Exhibit 19, page 4. In conclusions 7, 9 and 10 on pages 9 and 10 of the report, Dr Fitzpatrick said:[22]“Mr Murphy appears to have developed a pain syndrome. This may be related to psychological issues or other issues and could be best addressed by a pain specialist. There is no clear orthopaedic pathology to explain his pain syndrome.…Mr Murphy has not worked since the accident. If one were to look purely on the demonstrable organic pathology there is no reason why Mr Murphy cannot work. He tells me he cannot drive because of his excruciating pain. He cites a very high level of disability. He is not an increased risk of harm or injury by driving or working as a taxi driver.…There do appear to be psychological issues at play.”[22]Exhibit 19, pages 9 and 10.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Murphy v Turner-Jones & Anor [2022] QSC 40
PARTIES:	BRETT LESLIE MURPHY (plaintiff) v LEAH TURNER-JONES (first defendant) ALLIANZ AUSTRALIA LIMITED (second defendant)
FILE NO/S:	SC No 1093 of 2020
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Rockhampton
DELIVERED ON:	31 March 2022
DELIVERED AT:	Rockhampton
HEARING DATE:	28 February, 1 & 2 March 2022
JUDGE:	Crow J
ORDER:	1. Judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant for $200,776.07.
CATCHWORDS:	DAMAGES – ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES IN TORT – PERSONAL INJURY – METHOD OF ASSESSMENT GENERALLY - where the plaintiff suffered physical injuries in a motor vehicle accident – where liability is admitted by the defendant – where the plaintiff claims damages for personal injuries arising from the motor vehicle accident – where damages are assessed under the Civil Liability Act 2003. Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld), s 52, s 59 Civil Liability Regulation 2014 (Qld), Sch 3, Sch 4 Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld), s 41, s 51 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 155 Allwood v Wilson & Anor [2011] QSC 180. Hart v Consolidated Meat Group Pty Ltd [2005] QCA 421. Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission (1995) 182 CLR 1. Nucifora & Another v AAI Limited [2013] QSC 338. O’Connor v SP Bray Ltd (1937) 56 CLR 464. Paul v Rendell (1981) 55 ALJR 371.
COUNSEL:	The plaintiff appeared on his own behalf Tony Arnold for the first and second defendants
SOLICITORS:	The plaintiff appeared on his own behalf McInnes Wilson Solicitors for the first and second defendants