[2012] TASFC 6
COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA (FULL COURT)
CITATION: Potts v Frost [2012] TASFC 6
PARTIES: POTTS, Joshua Andrew
v
FROST, Darren Stephen Ian
FILE NO/S: 946/2011
JUDGMENT
APPEALED FROM: Potts v Frost [2011] TASSC 55
DELIVERED ON: 19 December 2012
DELIVERED AT: Hobart
HEARING DATE: 7 – 9 May 2012
JUDGMENT OF: Evans, Blow and Tennent JJ
CATCHWORDS:
Damages – Measure and remoteness of damages in actions for tort – Measure of damages – Personal injuries – Method of assessment – Voluntary obligations – Expenditure by relatives of plaintiff – Whether for "services of a domestic nature or services relating to nursing and attendance".
Common Law (Miscellaneous Actions) Act 1986 (Tas), s5.
Grimsey v Southern Regional Health Board (1997) 7 Tas R 67; Southern Regional Health Board v Grimsey (1998) 8 Tas R 116, followed.
Griffiths v Kerkemeyer (1977) 139 CLR 161; Van Gervan v Fenton (1992) 175 CLR 327, discussed.
Aust Dig Damages [34]
Damages – Measure and remoteness of damages in actions for tort – Measure of damages – Personal injuries – Loss of earnings and earning capacity – Legal principles – Method of calculation – Allowances for residual earning capacity and contingencies.
Paff v Speed (1961) 105 CLR 549; Bresatz v Przibilla (1962) 108 CLR 541; Atlas Tiles Ltd v Briers (1978) 144 CLR 202, referred to.
Aust Dig Damages [39]
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant: D J Gunson SC and C H Hobbs
Respondent: J Ruskin QC and K E Read SC
Solicitors:
Appellant: Ware & Partners
Respondent: Dobson Mitchell & Allport
Judgment Number: [2012] TASFC 6
Number of paragraphs: 141
Serial No 6/2012
File No 946/2011
JOSHUA ANDREW POTTS v DARREN STEPHEN IAN FROST
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT FULL COURT
EVANS J
BLOW J
TENNENT J
19 December 2012
Orders of the Court
Appeal dismissed.
Cross-appeal allowed.
Judgment varied by reducing the judgment sum from $1,840,335 to $1,698,298.
Serial No 6/2012
File No 946/2011
JOSHUA ANDREW POTTS v DARREN STEPHEN IAN FROST
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT FULL COURT
EVANS J
BLOW J
TENNENT J
19 December 2012
This appeal relates to a tragic motorcycle accident in January 2002. The appellant, Joshua Potts, was a pillion passenger on a motorcycle driven by the respondent, Darren Frost. They were friends. They and others were staying at a shack at White Beach. Late on the night of 8 January, they went for a ride together. The bike left the road and hit a tree. As a result, both the appellant and the respondent are now paraplegics. Neither of them has any memory of the accident or the events leading up to it. The appellant sued the respondent for damages for negligence. The case went to trial before Porter J. His Honour found that the respondent was the rider of the motorcycle, that he was negligent, and that there was contributory negligence on the part of the appellant in travelling on the motorcycle as a pillion passenger. He reduced the damages by 30% to…
Continue reading Potts v Frost
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Potts v Frost [2012] TASFC 6
- Case
- [2012] TASFC 6
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was the recoverability of damages for gratuitous services provided by relatives of an injured plaintiff. Specifically, the court had to determine whether such services, which were of a domestic nature or related to nursing and attendance, fell within the scope of recoverable damages under the relevant legislation. This involved an interpretation of the principles governing the assessment of damages for personal injuries, particularly concerning voluntary assistance.
The Court of Appeal considered the established principles regarding the recovery of damages for gratuitous services, noting that such claims are generally permissible where the services are of a kind that would otherwise have to be paid for. The court analysed the nature of the services provided by Mr. Potts' family, distinguishing between those that were purely domestic and those that involved nursing and attendance. The court's reasoning focused on whether the expenditure, had it been incurred by the plaintiff, would have been reasonable and necessary. The appeal was dismissed, meaning the primary judgment was upheld in principle, but the cross-appeal was allowed, leading to a variation of the damages awarded.
Consequently, the judgment sum awarded to the plaintiff was reduced from $1,840,335 to $1,698,298.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Appeal dismissed.
2. Cross-appeal allowed.
3. Judgment varied by reducing the judgment sum from $1,840,335 to $1,698,298.
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.