Patorniti v Carter - [1997] QSC 122

IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF QUEENSLAND

No 1820 of 1994.

Brisbane

Before the Hon. Justice Williams

[Patorniti v. Carter]

BETWEEN:

PAUL ANTHONY PATORNITI
Plaintiff

AND:

CATHERINE ANN CARTER
Defendant
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - WILLIAMS J

Judgment delivered 15/07/1997

CATCHWORDS: NEGLIGENCE - defendant's car hits bicycle near intersection - in circumstance no contributory negligence.

PRACTICE - defendant states "not intend to contest the issue of liability" - held not preclude raising of issue of contributory negligence.
DAMAGES - general soft tissue injuries - development of post-traumatic stress disorder and pain disorder - psychiatric cripple - male age 39 at trial - total award $399,718.

Counsel:M Grant-Taylor for plaintiff
R Myers for defendant

Solicitors:Boyce Garrick Eastman for plaintiff
McInnes Wilson & Jensen for defendant

Hearing Dates: 31 January and 9 July 1997

IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF QUEENSLAND

No 1820 of 1994

Brisbane

[Patorniti v. Carter]

BETWEEN:

PAUL ANTHONY PATORNITI
Plaintiff

AND:

CATHERINE ANN CARTER
Defendant
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - WILLIAMS J

Judgment delivered / /1997

The plaintiff claims damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained when his bicycle was struck by a motor vehicle being driven by the defendant on 26 May 1992. Counsel for the defendant conceded that there was negligence on the part of his client, but the issue of contributory negligence was raised. Quantum was also a contentious issue at the trial.
The incident occurred shortly after 4.00pm on the day in question at the intersection of Maroochydore Road with Amaroo and Baden-Powell Streets. The intersection is not a normal "straight-through" one; it is somewhat hard to describe in words but is well depicted in the colour aerial photograph which is exhibit 39. There are traffic lights at the intersection, but they do not control traffic turning left from Amaroo Street into Maroochydore Road; that was the route being taken by the defendant. That traffic is faced with a sign reading "turn left at any time with care". The plaintiff was travelling in a westerly direction along Maroochydore Road through that intersection. The collision occurred at the point where there is a red "x" marked on exhibit 39; that is at approximately the point where the left-hand turn lane from Amaroo Street fully merges with Maroochydore Road.
I accept that the plaintiff came to a stop because of a red light at the point where Maroochydore Road meets the intersection. Apparently he came to a halt adjacent to the traffic island, which placed him in the right-hand lane. When the light changed to green he let traffic travelling in the same direction through until the lanes to his left were clear and then proceeded across the intersection moving into the left-hand lane. As he crossed the intersection he looked to his left into Amaroo Street and did not observe any vehicles. He then continued on in the left-hand lane of Maroochydore Road. He heard a screeching of brakes, looked under his left arm, and saw the defendant's vehicle about to collide with his rear…

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 Patorniti v Carter

Details

AGLC: Patorniti v Carter [1997] QSC 122
Case: [1997] QSC 122
Decision Date: 15 July 1997

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Patorniti v Carter, the plaintiff claimed damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained when his bicycle was struck by a motor vehicle driven by the defendant. The defendant conceded negligence but disputed contributory negligence and quantum. The court held that the defendant's gross negligence was the sole cause of the collision. The court found that the plaintiff was not contributory negligent and awarded damages of $399,718, including $45,000 for pain and suffering and loss of amenities, $97,884 for past economic loss, and $175,000 for future economic loss. The court also awarded special damages, interest, and future care expenses. The final order was for judgment for the plaintiff for $399,718 with costs to be taxed.

Orders