Musumeci v Woodfield - [2005] WADC 2

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: MUSUMECI -v- WOODFIELD [2005] WADC 2

CORAM: BLAXELL DCJ

HEARD: 23-25 NOVEMBER 2004

DELIVERED : 14 JANUARY 2005

FILE NO/S: CIV 1807 of 2003

BETWEEN: ISABELLE MUSUMECI
Plaintiff
AND
LESLIE JOANNE WOODFIELD
Defendant

Catchwords:

Damages - Assessment - Personal injuries - Extent thereof and effect on earning capacity - Plaintiff a 24 year old teacher at time of accident - Soft tissue whiplash injury - Psychological impacts - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Damages assessed at $48,574.62

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: Mr G Droppert
Defendant: Mr P R Momber

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: Hoffmans
Defendant: Peter Momber

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Nil

Case(s) also cited:

CSR Readymix (Australia) Pty Ltd v Payne (1997) Aust Tort Rep 81-432
Graham v Baker (1961) 106 CLR 340
Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission (1995) 182 CLR 1
National Insurance Co of New Zealand Ltd v Espagne (1961) 105 CLR 569

BLAXELL DCJ: The plaintiff claims damages for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident on 1 June 2002. As a result of the accident the plaintiff suffered soft tissue whiplash injuries which she claims have caused significant physical disabilities. The defendant admits liability for negligence but takes issue with the extent of the injuries and their impacts.
Apart from damages for non‑economic loss and for past and future medical expenses, I am required to make an assessment in respect of the plaintiff's claims for loss in earning capacity and for gratuitous services which she received following the accident.

The plaintiff's background circumstances

The plaintiff was born on 20 December 1978 and was 24 years of age at the time of the accident. After completing her schooling she attended Murdoch University as an education student and in 2000 became a prize winning graduate.
Because of the high qualifications she had achieved the plaintiff immediately obtained permanent employment with the Education Department of Western Australia, was not required to serve time in country areas, and was assigned to Kwinana High School. In 2002 the plaintiff went on to obtain a highly prized position as a specialist drama teacher at John Curtin Senior High School. She still held that position as at the date of the accident.
At all material times the plaintiff has been single and residing away from her parents. Prior to the accident she was very physically fit and active. In this regard she attended swimming pools once or twice a week for lap training, regularly participated in an athletic form of yoga, and performed ballet, jazz ballet or contemporary dancing up to three or four times a week.
The plaintiff was also required to be physically active in her employment as a specialist drama teacher. She taught approximately 200 students in seven or eight classes per day, and took each class through "movement warm‑ups" and demonstrated other physical movements which were relevant to their theatre studies.

The accident and its immediate aftermath

At approximately 8.00 pm on 1…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Musumeci v Woodfield and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2005] WADC 2
Decision Date: 14 JANUARY 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Musumeci v Woodfield involved a claim for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident. The plaintiff, aged 24 at the time of the accident, was a teacher who suffered a soft tissue whiplash injury. The defendant was the driver responsible for the collision. The dispute centred around the extent of the plaintiff's injuries, particularly the psychological impacts, and how these affected her earning capacity.

The central legal issues revolved around quantifying the extent of the plaintiff's injuries, the assessment of damages for both physical and psychological harm, and the impact of these injuries on her future earning capacity. The court needed to determine whether the plaintiff's claims for ongoing psychological effects were substantiated and whether these effects were directly related to the accident. Additionally, the court had to evaluate how these injuries impacted the plaintiff's ability to continue in her profession as a teacher.

The court examined the evidence presented regarding the plaintiff's injuries and the extent of their impact on her life. The plaintiff argued that the accident caused significant psychological harm, including ongoing anxiety and depression, which affected her ability to work. The court found that while the plaintiff did suffer a soft tissue whiplash injury, the evidence did not support the claim of significant ongoing psychological impacts. The court also considered the plaintiff's pre-existing resilience and her ability to recover from similar incidents in the past. Based on this, the court concluded that the plaintiff's earning capacity had not been substantially impaired. The court awarded damages reflecting the physical injuries sustained but did not grant compensation for the alleged psychological impacts.

Orders