Perry v Nottle - [2003] WADC 143

PERRY -v- NOTTLE [2003] WADC 143

Last Update: 23/06/2003

PERRY -v- NOTTLE [2003] WADC 143
Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2003] WADC 143
Case No:	CIV:675/2002	Heard:	16 MAY 2003
Coram:	MULLER DCJ	Delivered:	20/06/2003
Location:	PERTH	Supplementary Decision:
No of Pages:	15	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Plaintiff's claim dismissed
[Click here for Judgment in Adobe Acrobat Format ]

Parties:	SANDRA ELIZABETH PERRY CRAIG NOTTLE
Catchwords:	Damages Assessment 41 year old female with whiplash injury following rear end collision Enlargement of symptoms over period of two years following accident Whether enlarged symptoms attributable to motor vehicle accident Quantum of general damages
Legislation:	Motor Vehicle (Third Party Insurance) Act 1943
Case References:	Southgate v Waterford (1990) 21 NSWLR 2 Wylde v 'Arriaza, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 970359; 23 July 1997 Nil

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : PERRY -v- NOTTLE [2003] WADC 143 CORAM : MULLER DCJ HEARD : 16 MAY 2003 DELIVERED : 20 JUNE 2003 FILE NO/S : CIV 675 of 2002 BETWEEN : SANDRA ELIZABETH PERRY

Plaintiff

AND

CRAIG NOTTLE

Defendant

Catchwords:

Damages - Assessment - 41 year old female with whiplash injury following rear end collision - Enlargement of symptoms over period of two years following accident - Whether enlarged symptoms attributable to motor vehicle accident - Quantum of general damages

Legislation:

Motor Vehicle (Third Party Insurance) Act 1943

Result:

Plaintiff's claim dismissed

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr K S Pratt

Defendant : Mr J R Brooksby

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Stephen Browne

Defendant : Greenland Brooksby

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

Southgate v Waterford (1990) 21 NSWLR 2
Wylde v 'Arriaza, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 970359; 23 July 1997

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

(Page 3)

1 MULLER DCJ: The plaintiff, who was born on 28 March 1962 and is now aged 41, was injured in a motor vehicle accident in Albany Highway on 10 June 2000 when a motor vehicle driven by the defendant collided with the rear of the plaintiff's either slow moving or stationary vehicle causing her head and neck to be jolted forwards and backwards while she was in the driver's seat. The defendant has admitted that the accident occurred as a result of his negligence and the only issue in the trial was the measure of general damages to which the plaintiff was entitled.

Circumstances of accident

2 Although liability is not in issue the circumstances in which the accident occurred are significant because they have a direct bearing on the likelihood of the plaintiff having suffered a whiplash injury of the severity she claims.

3 On the morning of the accident the plaintiff was driving a Nissan Patrol 4-wheel drive in a northerly direction in Albany Highway. At the time the road surface was wet. She stopped her vehicle in the right lane behind a vehicle making a right hand turn. While her vehicle was stationary she heard the squeal…

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 Perry v Nottle

Details

AGLC: Perry v NOTTLE [2003] WADC 143
Case: [2003] WADC 143
Decision Date: 20 JUNE 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Perry v Nottle involved a plaintiff, Perry, who sought damages for a whiplash injury sustained in a rear-end motor vehicle collision. The defendant, Nottle, was the driver of the vehicle that collided with Perry's car. The dispute centred on the causation and the extent of Perry's injuries, as well as the quantum of general damages she was entitled to receive. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The legal issues that the court had to determine were whether the exacerbation of Perry's symptoms over a two-year period following the accident was attributable to the motor vehicle accident and, if so, the appropriate amount of general damages to compensate for her injuries. The court had to consider expert medical evidence and weigh the credibility of the parties' testimonies.

The court found that there was no direct evidence linking the enlargement of Perry's symptoms to the motor vehicle accident. While the evidence showed that she suffered from chronic pain and disability, it did not establish that these conditions were a direct result of the accident. Furthermore, the court found that Perry had not taken reasonable steps to mitigate her injuries, which also impacted the assessment of damages. As a result, the court dismissed Perry's claim for general damages.

Orders

Orders of the court

Plaintiff's claim dismissed

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.