Perfect v MacDonald

Case [2012] QSC 11

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Perfect v MacDonald & Anor [2012] QSC 11

PARTIES:

STEVEN JOHN PERFECT
(plaintiff)

V

HELENE DIANNE MACDONALD
(first defendant)
AND
SUNCORP METWAY INSURANCE  LTD
ABN 83 075 695 966
(second defendant)

FILE NO/S:

S350 of 2011

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court Rockhampton

DELIVERED ON:

10 February 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Rockhampton

HEARING DATE:

6 February 2012

JUDGE:

McMeekin J

ORDER:

Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $123,813.10

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS - NEGLIGENCE – ROAD ACCIDENT CASES – ACTIONS FOR NEGLIGENCE – APPORTIONMENT OF DAMAGES – GENERALLY – where motor vehicle accident – – where pedestrian struck by motor vehicle – where liability admitted – where contributory negligence is in issue – where plaintiff remained on the road surface as the vehicle approached - whether the plaintiff acted with reasonable care

DAMAGES – MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – GENERAL PRINCIPLES –  assessment of damages pursuant to the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) - where the assessment of general damages and future economic loss is in issue – whether s 55 of the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) has altered the common law

Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld)

Civil Liability Regulation 2003 (Qld)

Alldridge v Mulcahey (1950) 81 CLR 337

Allwood v Wilson & Anor [2011] QSC 180

Broadhurst v Millman [1976] VR 208

Brooks v Zammit & Anor [2011] QSC 181

Graham v Baker (1961) 106 CLR 340

Malec v JC Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638

McHale v Watson (1964) 115 CLR 199

COUNSEL:

AM Arnold for the plaintiff

GF Crow SC for the second defendant

SOLICITORS:

Rees R & Sydney Jones for the plaintiff

Grant & Simpson Lawyers for the second defendant

  1. McMEEKIN J: The plaintiff, Steven Perfect, claims damages for personal injuries suffered on the 2nd December 2009. He was struck when a pedestrian by the side mirror of a vehicle driven by the first defendant, Helene MacDonald.

  1. The second defendant admits negligence but argues that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent. The quantum of damages is also in issue.

  1. Mr Perfect was born on the 20th February 1995. He was 14 years old when injured and is now aged 16 years.

LIABILITY

  1. The subject accident occurred in Knutsford St near its intersection with North St. Knutsford St runs east-west, is undulating in character, and is located in a suburban built up area of South Rockhampton. The Traffic Crash Report has the accident as occurring at around 9.30am. It was a clear summer’s day.

  1. Mr Perfect was walking in a westerly direction with two companions along Knutsford St. They were of an age, around 14 to 15 years old. The oldest of them, Mr O’Rourke, was walking a little ahead of the other two. They were heading off to go fishing. They were walking along the northern, or for their direction of travel, the right hand side of the road. Their precise location was the…

Continue reading Perfect v MacDonald

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Perfect v MacDonald [2012] QSC 11
Case
[2012] QSC 11
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Perfect was a pedestrian who was struck by MacDonald's motor vehicle while crossing the road. MacDonald admitted liability for the accident, but raised a defence of contributory negligence. Perfect's claim included damages for personal injuries and economic loss. The primary issue before the court was whether Perfect had acted with reasonable care for his own safety, and if so, how the damages should be apportioned under the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld).

The court considered whether Perfect's decision to remain on the road surface as MacDonald's vehicle approached was a failure to exercise reasonable care. The court concluded that Perfect had acted reasonably in the circumstances, as he had crossed the road in a designated pedestrian crossing and had been struck when he was approximately one metre from the pavement. The court found that MacDonald was 80% liable and Perfect 20% liable for the accident.

The court also considered the issue of damages, specifically whether the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) had altered the common law approach to the assessment of general damages and future economic loss. The court found that the statutory scheme did not alter the common law principles regarding the assessment of damages. The court awarded Perfect damages of $123,813.10, reflecting the apportionment of liability.

The court ordered that MacDonald pay Perfect $123,813.10, reflecting the apportionment of liability between the parties. The order recognised the contribution of both parties to the accident and the damages suffered by Perfect. The court's decision provides guidance on the application of the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) to cases of contributory negligence and the assessment of damages for personal injuries.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $123,813.10

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.