Nominal Defendant v Diamond, Sharon

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:

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.

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

earnings and

that

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

”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 .

t h i s

a p p e a l

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.

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

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

cm.

ragged

l a c e r a t i o n running

from below

t h e r i g h t

coixmissure

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 '

lacerations

around

the right commissure and another

complex

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

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

was

n o t s u r p r i s f n g t h a t

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;

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

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

24 February.

She was

a t t h a t s t a g e

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

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

On 8 July 1975 the

respondent

,undzrwcnt

f u r t h e r

opera t ion .

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 .

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

but the

respondent

s t i l l had

problems

with

weakness

o f

t he

l e f t s i d e

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

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

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

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

-. ~.

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

fol lows,

namely

that

she complained of

ight dribbling and

d i f f i c u l t y i n e a t i n g

t h e l e f t s i d e

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

t h e l e f t c o r n e r

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 ,

examination

tha t

ime

her

doctor found the scarr ing

had

se t t l ed r easonab ly we l l

and the contour

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.

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

t h e respondent a t t h e

date

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.

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

w i l l g radual ly subs ide

4.. Her mouth has

' s t r a igh tened

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

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.

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 .

e . .

She does n o t go out on soc ia l occas ions

of ten a s before the

acc ident .

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

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

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

source

embarrassment

and worry,

reducing her

potel

any

s o c i a l c i r c u m s t a n c e a t

s i g n i f i c m t s t z g e

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

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 .

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

t h a t t h e e x e r c i s e

d i s c r e t i o n

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

darnages

ought not

t o be

i n t e r f e r e d w i t h

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

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 ,

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

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

c a l l e d

second

op in ion ' .

Such

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

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

t o o s t r o n g l y

s a i d t h a t

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

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

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

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

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

the

ground

o f

excess

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

ea rn ing capac i ty

and

the k inds

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

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

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 .

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 .

added: -

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

judge ra ther than

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

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

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

formed

the

a p p e l l a t e c o u r t , a n d

being

formed must

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

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

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 ,c, imDoss-jble

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

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 ,

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

the occas ion .

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

the appel lan t . But cer ta in of

them

a re expres sed

t e rms

which a re capable

o f be ing unders tood in

than one

sen'se.

Thus

the expres s ion

' s eve re

f ac i a l d i s f igu remen t '

capable

of reference

disf igurements

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.

a n u g l y d i s t o r t i o n

f ea tu re s .

enable

Lhis

Court

t h e

b e t t e r

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

t h e words used

it was

decided by the Cour t tha t

i t

should

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

injury

b u t

they

ylot

have

repellent; q u a l i t y ,

nor

they impor t ug l iness

t o t h e

respondent l s face .

descr ibed

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 .

t h a t sense

sa t i s f i e s the

f i nd ing

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

t h e

respondent

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 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

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

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

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

February 1376 but it i s mentioned

. . in t h a t of l 8 October 1976

where

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

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

mouth

and q u i t e

f r e q u e n t l y dr ibble

out

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

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

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

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

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.

-~ .

f a r as t h e award

r e f l e c t s loss of

marriage prospec ts

it must

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

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 .

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

s o c i a l life

it must

l i k e l y

t h a t t h e

respondent

will

enjoy

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

_ _ * - - -

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

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

-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

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

$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

r e spec t

. costs,

and

judgment

entered

f o r $36,203.40.

[1978] FCA 120

26 Oct 1978