Nominal Defendant v Diamond, Sharon

[1978] FCA 120

ON APPEAL -, *I from t he Suprerile Court of

the Australian C a p i t a l T e r r i t o r y

A N D: SHARON DIAMOND

--	--
Respondent

...

ORDER

JUDGES MAKING ORDER:	Smithers, Blackburn and Franki JJ.
DATE OF ORDER	ab October 1978
WHERE MADE	Canberra
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

3. The r e s p o n d e n t t o pay the appellant's cos ts of the

app c a. 1. .

l

Appellant

Respondent

c___ Smithers, Bl-ackburn and Frankj- JJ.

as .a r e s u l t of t h e negligent: conduc t i n the management o f a

Motor vehicle of t he driver thereof on February 1975, the

s a i d vehicle being an uninsured motor vehic le within th2 ncaning

of the Motor ’Traffic Ordinance	1936 of the Aust ra l ian
C s p i t a l T e r r i t o r y .

From the judgment of the learned t r i a l judge

it appears tl-at o f t h e sum of $48,203.40 t he sun1 of $3,203.40

represented spec ia l damages f o r medical and hospital expenses

and o the r out o f pockets and for l o s s of earnings and that

$45,000 represented general dar;,ages awarded i n r e spec t of

!l

”Pain and s u f f e r i n g , l o s s of amcn i t i z s e t c . On t h i s a p p e a l

no except ion i s t aken to the award so f a r as it inc ludes the

special damages but i t is contended that the sum of $45,000

awarded in r e spec t o f gene ra l damages i s excessive.

d

For some four d a y s a f t e r s u s t a i n i n g h e r i n j u r i e s t he

respondent was rather benumbed. Her face w a s badly l a c e r a t e d ,

fo re ign bodies such as broken glass had entered the wounds

ancl su r round ing t i s sues , There was a G cent imetre (cm.)

l a c e r a t i o n i n t h e u p p e r e y e l i d extending ?, cm. upwards

2

1-

:l 6 cpie j . ~ C . ( . xatj at1 ()l. t l l c i r i ; h t ~ ti: :: .plc.. r-u;x:i.nE; i.?-,i-c t.ilc2

~):~;. j .rI . ine a 3 cm, Lacer; i~i .~n p,::~-~~.i.l.cl tc! t_l?at l..~lst- rwntioncd

Cti.1 t:he nw.dian si .~je a 2 C I D . curved ?ac.erakior: on t h e right

c'!it:cl~, i: 3 cm. f u l l t-hiclmess l-aceratioi1 down the r i g h t

nz;sol.abial groovt? a n d i n t o the right nostril, a 2% cm.

curvecl ful l . thickness laceration i n the r igh t upper l i p j u s t

above t h e commi.ssure of t h e mcluth, 8 1 c m . and %cm.

s d p e r f i c i a l l a c e r a t i o n b e n e a t h t h e nosep a 14 cm. ragged

l a c e r a t i o n running from below t h e r i g h t coixmissure of t h e

J	mouth	ac ross	the	lower	l i p	and	i n t o t h e	left cheek	o f	f u l l
l

th ickness opez ing in to the mouth, a complex of f i v e

l ' l

lacerations around the right commissure and another complex

of 2 cm. t o 6 cm. l a t e r a l t o t h e l e f t commissure of t he

mouth and o t h e r s u p e r f i c i a l s l i c i n g i n j u r i e s on the cheeks

and e y e l i d s .

Clea r ly these facial i n j u r i e s were most s e r ious

and it was n o t s u r p r i s f n g t h a t on seeing them i n t h e m i r r o r

some days l a te r the respondent thought she would wish t o die;

An opera t ion was performed on 15 February under

, general a n a e s t h e t i c and the wounds were c l o s e d i n layers. ,

There was tissue l o s s i n t h e l o w e r l i p r e s u l t i n g i n a f i s t u l a

which h e a l e d a f t e r some weeks. The respondent l e f t h o s p i t a l on

24 February. She was a t t h a t s t a g e a stewardess a t the Sergeants '

Mess KAAF Base a t F a i r b a i r n i n the Aust ra l ian C a p i t a l T e r r i t o r y

and she re turned t o work a f t e r a b o u t f i v e weeks. When she

re turned t~ work she f e l t some t rouble v i . th her l egs . They were

t l funny" and on occasion became swollen and €or shcrt periods were

.J ?

On 8 July 1975 the respondent ,undzrwcnt a f u r t h e r

opera t ion . A large t r ansve r se scar across the lower l i p and left

cheek was excised together with surrounding scar t i s s u e . By

27 February 1976 t h e scar from tl1a.t ope ra t ion had s e t t l e d w e l l

1 but the respondent s t i l l had problems with weakness o f t he

l e f t s i d e of t h e mouth but musc le ac t iv i ty was present and

improvement was expected. On 24 Apri l 1976 an impacted piece

of glass was removed from the r igh t t empora l a r ea g iv ing he r

q u i t e d r a m a t i c r e l i e f in t h a t p o r t i o n o f her head and g r e a t l y re -

duc ing the frequency and i n t k n s i t y o f her headaches e As a t t h e

date of trial i n th i s ca se the r e sponden t ' s cond i t ion was descr ibed

-. ~. .

by D r . James ( s e e h i s r e p o r t d a t e d 1 8 October 1 9 7 7 ) s u b s t a n t i a l l y

as fol lows, namely that she complained of sl ight dribbling and

d i f f i c u l t y i n e a t i n g in t h e l e f t s i d e of h e r mouth and o f having

i n c r e a s e d s e n s i t i v i t y i n t h e l e f t s u p r a o r b i t a l n e r v e and o f

decreased movement of t h e l e f t c o r n e r of t he mouth and t h a t t h e

scars s t i l l changed colour with cold weather and were prone. t o

deve lop supe r f i c i a l i n fec t ions , On examination at tha t ime

her doctor found the scarr ing had se t t l ed r easonab ly we l l

and the contour of t he l e f t cheek was reasonable , bu t tha t

t he scars were s t i l l q u i t e obvious. He found also some weakness i n

the muscular ac t ion a t the l e f t c o r n e r o f t h e mouth although move-

ment was p resen t . H i s ~ o p i n i o n was that the condi t ion o f the face

was s ta t ic a l though there would be minor improvement over the

years. ' The r e sponden t ' s f ac i a l s ca r r ing was descrJ'.bed by D r . Cor ry et

a tou i ; tlLe Same time as cau:;L:,g "mod. 'rate cosme t i c d i sab i l i t y" . At.

concerning the condi t ion of t h e respondent a t t h e date of

t r i a l , namely:

l l ' l . A feel ing which I wovld express ( though not in

her terms) of sadness o r angu i sh tha t she should

have su f fe red t h c acc ident - which she overcomes

i n a couple o f days as she does not	believe i ~ ,	self
pity.

2. S e n s i t i v i t y o f t he €rant o f the forehezd a.bove t h e

l e f t eyebrow - prevent ing her wearing t h e o n l y

make-up she used before t h e acc ident . She canno-t

shape h e r eyebrows anymorc though 'it would be ice

t o ' . _., --- .

3.  It still does happen that she gets swelling (not

very f r e q u e n t l y ) i n t h e legs; and per iods a r e

i r r e g u l a r . This wzs r e l a t e d t o the acc ident bu t

w i l l g radual ly subs ide e

4.. Her mouth has ' s t r a igh tened up a l o t '

b u t the bo t tom l i p i s . smal le r than the t o p l i p .

[Her e a r l i e r photograph?riould suggest that t h i s i s

, a r a d i c a l change caused by the acc iden t .

5.   She dribbles from the left side of her mouth;

t h i s happens qui te f requent ly . She has very
l i t t l e c o n t r o l o v e r it. See also evidence of
,	Mrs. B i d m . Minor improvement only i s expected.
6.	Headaches which apparently a r e p red ic t ed t o
r ecove r wi th in s ix t o twelve months - becoming
l e s s severe as more inf requent .
z	e . .
C.	She does n o t go out on soc ia l occas ions as
of ten a s before the acc ident .

. 9. .The scarsLBs at 21 December 197ywere a s descr ibed i n 11

d e t a i l i n the Report OP Dr. Jz.mes. ..

and concluded	h i s f i n d i n g s	a s	f o l l o w s : -
i

" I n n y v i e w t h i s g i r l , now s i n g l e , has su f fe red a d i s f i g u r i n g

injury, which has been painful and will c o n t i m e t o be a source

of embarrassment and worry, reducing her potel l t ia l in any

s o c i a l c i r c u m s t a n c e a t a s i g n i f i c m t s t z g e of her l i f e . and

reddcing her prospect of marr iage i f she were i n t e r e s t e d i n

marriage again. Not only i s her coul l tenance scarred, she has

a ccnsid-erable loss of lower l i p t i s s u e and an embarrassing

d i s a b i l i t y o f t h e l e f t s i d e o f th.e mouth. Even though there

may be some minor improvement she w i l l continue t o have a

severe f a c i a l d i s f i g u r e m s n t . A s u b s t a n t i a l awar-d i s c a l l e d f o r

t o compensate her for whaiLfi.gin the more important aspects a

permanent condition.

The p r i n c i p l e a c c o r d i n g t o which an appeal against the quantun

of an award of damages by a judge should be approached i s n o t i n

doubt. A s was s a i d by Barwick C.J . .in Sharman v. Evans (1977)

13 A.L.R. 57 a t 59: -

' I . . . the fundamenta l p r inc ip le is t h a t t h e e x e r c i s e of

d i s c r e t i o n by t h e t r i a l j u d g e i n t h e e s t i m a t i o n of

darnages ought not t o be i n t e r f e r e d w i t h by an appe l l a t e

cour t un le s s t he t r i a l judge h a s e r r e d i n p o i n t of law

o r i n h i s approach t o the assessment or un les s

t h e a s s e s s m e n t i t s e l f , by i t s d ispropor t ion t o t h e

i n j u r i e s r e c e i v e d , d e m o n s t r a t e s e r r o r on the p p r t o f

t he t r i a l j udge . No twi ths t and ing some views which

have been expressed, the function o f a cour t of appea l ,

. i n my op in ion . i s n o t t o o f f e r what i n connec t ion

with another d i sc ip l - ine would be c a l l e d pa second

op in ion ' . Such a cour t i s s t r i c t l y c o n f i n e d

t o t h e remedy o€ e r r o r i n t h e t r i a l or i n t h e z s s e s s -

rncnt of t h e t r i a l j u d g e . I t cannot be t o o s t r o n g l y

s a i d t h a t a mere d i f f e rence o f op in ion as t o what

ought -to have Seen the proper awrxd o f damages does

n o t i n d i c a t e error on t h e p a r t of the t r i a l judge.

This d i s t i n c t i o n between mere d i f f e rence ~f 0pin . i or:

and e r r o r has been v a r i o u s l y expressed, perhaps

no t a lways wi th sa t i s f ac t ion t o t he mind. But t h e r e

"In e f fec t t he Cour t , before it i n t e r f e r e s wi th 2n

' award of damages I should be s a t i s f i e d t h a t the

judge h.as ac t ed on a wrong p r i n c i p l e of law, o r has misapprehended t ,ke f a c t s , o s has, for t hese

o r o t h e r reasons , made a wholly erroneous est imate

of the dmage suf fered . It i s not erlough that t h e r e

i s a balance of opinion o r p reference . The s c a l e

must go down h e a v i l y a g a i n s t t h e f igu re a t t acked i f

the appel la . te cour t i s t o i n t e r f e re , whe the r on the

ground o f excess or i n s u f f i c i e n c y . I t

arsd i n the same c a s e A i c k i n J . s a i d : .

"In my opin ion the prcper approach t o t h i s case i s

t o look a t t h e t o t a l sum awarded as general damages

and a t a l l - t he c i r cums tances , t he pa in a.nd

s u f f e r i n g past;, presen t and fu tu re , t he phys ica l

d i s a b i l i t i e s , t h e medical. and psychological problems

w h i c h a r e i n e v i t a b l e f o r t h e f u t u r e , t h e e f f e c t on

ea rn ing capac i ty and the k inds of a d d i t i o n a l c o s t s ,

which t h e a p p e l l a n t will necessa.rFly incur, and t o

ask oneself whether the sum o€ $150,000 (awarded)

i s ' o u t of a l l reason' or 'wholly d i s p r o D o r t i o n a t e

t o t he c i r cuns t ances ' . (156 C.L.R. a t 159-160)

However, speaking of an a p p e a l a g a i n s t t h e v e r d i c t

of a j u r y on the ground t h a t it was excessive it was said. by

Barwick C.J. i n Arthur Robinson (Grafton) P tv . L t d . v. Carter

(1968) 122 C.L.R.649 at 655 that whether such a verd ic t was

unreasonably dispyoport ionate must i n the na tu re of t h i n g s

depend upon the individ.ua1 judgmmt o f those comprising the

appellate t r i b u n a l . He added: - .

I

It would appear tha t with r e s p e c t t o an appeal

a g a i n s t the quantum o f an award of damages for per sona l i n ju ry

by a judge ra ther than a j u r y , p a r t i c u l a r l y where -those

damages a r e Ior pa in , su f fe r ing and l o s s of amenit ies a duty of

the same k i n d r e s t s upon the cour t 02 appeal . In such a

case t h e ques t ion is whether it i s shown t h a t t h e sum awarded

is l lout of a l l reason" ort 'wholly d i sp ropor t iona te t o the

circumstan.ces1'. I n t h i s case, however d i f f i c u l t it may be

t o mark out; the boundaries o f what i s within reason o r

d i sp ropor t iona te t o the circumstances,a judgment must be formed

by the a p p e l l a t e c o u r t , a n d being formed must be made e f f e c t i v e .

A s was said i n the judgment o f t h e High Court i n O f Brien v.

Dunsdon (196.5) 39 h.L.,J.R. 78:-

Wach case must be considered i n the light o f i t s own

I	f a c t s a i d an assessment mE:ii,e of.' t he amount which can
f a i r l y be regarded as reasonable compensation for
the injuries and d i s a b i l i t i e s which a p l a i n t i f f has
sus t a ined . I . I t i s I;rEe, as has been observed on

- - -.- - 2 - -?C. + h a + i +, i ,c, imDoss-jble

In a case of t h i s kind the appel la te t r i .buna1 i s

p a i n , suffering and l o s s of amenit ies i s e s s e n t i a l l y

\ a ma t t e r of judgment. I t i s n o t t h e s u b j e c t o f c a l c u i a t i o n , In

1 !	making t h e jucigmen-t the	Court	at f i r s t in s t ance i s seeking t o
I

d e t e m i n e what sum is reasonably adequate t o the occasion,

s e e per Dixon J. as he -then was i n Pamnent; v. Pa.vre1.ski (-lg/tg) -

79 C.L.R. 406 a t 411. 'The ques t ion before t h i s Court i s wilether

it i s satisfied. t h a t t h e sum of $45,000 i s wholly d i s -

p ropor t iona te to the occas ion .

It i s necessary therefore to i .dent i fy the occas ion

with some p a r t i c u l a r i t y . The f ixd ings o f t h e l e a r n e d t r i a l j u d g e

a re supported by the evidence and a r e i n s u b s t a n c e n o t a t t a c k e d

by the appel lan t . But cer ta in of them a re expres sed in t e rms

which a re capable o f be ing unders tood in more than one sen'se.

Thus the expres s ion ' s eve re f ac i a l d i s f igu remen t ' is capable

of reference to disf igurements of ve ry d i f f e ren t deg rees .

To the f ace o f a young woman any degree of disfigurement

may wel l be described a s severe and any blemish as a d i s -

f igurement. And t h e same expression would descr ibe a dis-

figuremen.t contributed. by a n u g l y d i s t o r t i o n of f ea tu re s . To

enable Lhis Court t h e b e t t e r tc i n t e r p r e t t h e t r u e s i g n i f i c a n c e

of t h e words used it was decided by the Cour t tha t i t should

of her f e a t u r e s . They are c a l c u l a t e d t c a t t r a c t a t t e n . i ; i o n

a n d . t o ' r e v e a l t h e f a c t of injury b u t they do ylot have a

repellent; q u a l i t y , nor 60 they impor t ug l iness t o t h e

respondent l s face . As descr ibed by D r . Corry t h e r e i s cc r . t a in ly

11. moderate cosmetic disabi l i tyl land it i s a d i s t inc t cosme t i c

d i s a b i l i t y . In t h a t sense it sa t i s f i e s the f i nd ing of t he l e a r n e d

trial. judge who accepted t h e respondent's evid,cnc.e and viewed her

d i s f igirrement S imi l a r ly the r e fe rence to t h e respondent s

d r i b b l e a r e i n t e r m s which need t o be intee*rpreted. No doubt

. .- ~.

the l ea rned t r i a l judge accepted the respondent's evidence and her

sister's evidence on this sub jec t . But again that evidence

I

i t s e l f r e q u i r e d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . It was of course f o r the

respondent; to prove t h e extent of her d i s a b i l i t i e s and it would

be unfair t o the a p p e l l a n t t h a t general terms which may mean

much o r l i t t l e should be i n t e rp re t ed acco rd ing t o their widest

.. possible import . Nevertheless the appel lant asked no quest ions

t o t e s t the s ign i f i cance of the terms lrsed in the g iv ing of

the evidence. It cannot therefore complain if every i n fe rence

Toour mind a p e m i s t e r t dribb1.e from t h e nouth could

l i:

A dr ibble cou.l.d be c? ma;joy cr a mi_i?or disahiX.i;y*

The ques t ion i s what is to be i r i ferred from t h e fiild.3.x-ig

tbat,"she d r i b b l e s f rom t h e l e f t s i d e of h e r mout,h; this happens

qu i t e f r equen t ly . She ha.s very l i t t l e c o n t m 1 CVCI* it, See

also evidence of PIIrs, B i d cn. " It i s t o be Gbserved. -that the

1	d r i b b l e was	n o t specifically referred -to i n	t h e	injuries
I

I	p a r t i c u l a r i s e d	in the	statement o f	claim.	It i s t o be
l

noted. that it i s not mentionec! by D r , Corry who was consulted

in October 1977 on behalf of the respondent for the purposes

of g iv ing evidenc.e i n t h i s case. It was no% mentioxled by Dr.

;Tames i n his l e t t e r t o the r e s p o n d e n t ' s s o l i c i t o r s ' o f 29

February 1376 but it i s mentioned .~ . . in t h a t of l 8 October 1976

l1

where he says '!Her p r e s e n t complaints are s l i g h t d r i b b l i n g md...

The evidence o f the respondent was a s fo l lows :-

!!Is there any problem d t h your mouth s i n c e t h e

I

operation?---l dribble. I ' v e g u t very l i t t l e

c o n t r o l over the l e f t s ide of my mouth and q u i t e

f r e q u e n t l y dr ibble out of it.

What, at any p a r t i c u l a r time?---At any giver, time, when

I am t a l k i n g o r when I am dr inking o r any-thing l ike. I f

Mrs. Biden5. the r e s p o n d e n t ' s s i s t e r , gave evidence as

follows :

HIS HOXOUR: Doe; t h a t happen all t h e time when she is

d.rinki.ng, Mrs. Biden? ---That I have noticed. I don't

142 would accordingly i n t e r p r e t h i s Honour S f ind ing a s

times when t a l k i n g , s l i g h t iil volume, r e l i eved by use of a ~strziw, but

dot c a l l i n g f o r any o they spec i f i c s t eps t o cope with i-L. It i s seen

t h e r e f o r e t h a t i n a d d i t i o n i;o t h e i n i t i a l shock of the

injury and t h e pain ar,d c t h e r d i s a b i l i t i e s i n t h e two yea.rs o f w h a t

m y be called the respondent's initial rehabilitation there arc twc,

major permanent d i s a b i l i t i e s - the sca r red f ace and t h e

d r i b b l i n g mouth. It is c lea r that a s u b s t a n t i a l award mwt be made.

-~ .

So f a r as t h e award r e f l e c t s loss of marriage prospec ts

it must be remembered t h a t such prospec t s a r e specu la t ive .

Rarriage i s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y a success even when n a t u r a l f a c t o r s . 2 ~ -

pear favourable- It is specu la t ive whether a marriage would o r

would not have everituated i f the respondent had not been

- .

i n j u r e d . It is c e r t a i n l y w e l l within reL1isti .c prospec ts

I .

t h a t she will marry d e s p i t e her disabilities.

So far as the award i s based on l o s s o€ s o c i a l

o p p o r t u n i t i e s and enjoyment of s o c i a l life it must be l i k e l y

t h a t t h e respondent will enjoy a p e r f e c t l y s a t i s f a c t o r y socia.1

q u a r t e r y e a r s namely a t the da te _ _ * - - - of - t r i a l she was s t i l l i n

employment, enjoying some socia.1- l i f e and c e r t a i n l y n o t

consumed by b i t t e r n e s s or depression, She i s obviously a

girl of s p i r i t who w i l l no t g i v e i n t o depression. A s she sakd

t l

h e r s e l f working w a s much b e t t e r than moping, it takes

your mind o f f the headache."

In these c i rcumstances one looks a t the award. One

remembers t h a t i t i s compensation t h a t is involved and n o t

what has been ca l led a perfect compensat ion. The occasion may

perhaps be descr ibed a s one i n which t h e respondent has su f fe red

a s e r i o u s i n j u r y which, p a r t i c u l a r l y in -the f i rs t years

a f t e r ' being suffered, caused her. rnuch pzin, depression and

znguish and which have left h e r with f a c i a l i n j u r i e s which

embarrass her, and always will. and by reason of which her l i f e

- - - - ~ f ' ~ ~ i - . r = d to a m a t e r i a l e x t e n t f o r some years

It i s 0u.r view t h a t t h e swn of $45,000 wzs, i n -i;h.e

relevan-k sense, wholly d i sp ropor t iona te t o t,he occa.si.o11,

It is 0 ~ ' Judgment t h a t t he sum which i n respect of p a i n ,

suf fe r ing and amenities is reasonablyadpq.uate to %he occasion

The award therefore ought to be reduced t o $36,203.L:0.

The appeal should accordingly be allowed with cos t s of the

appea l , t he judgment en te red se t a s i . de , save in r e spec t of

. costs, and judgment entered f o r $36,203.40.