Pryor v Vibro - [2002] NSWSC 136

CITATION: Pryor v Vibro [2002] NSWSC 136

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law Division

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20037/01

HEARING DATE(S): 27/2/02

JUDGMENT DATE: 8 March 2002

PARTIES :

Harold Keith Pryor
Vibro Products Pty Limited

JUDGMENT OF: Wood CJatCL at 1

COUNSEL : H Letherbarrow SC with Ms Fitzsimons (P)
Mr J Stewart (D)

SOLICITORS: Robert Johns (P)
McCulloch and Buggy (D)

CATCHWORDS: Personal Injury - plaintiff injured whilst at work - fall from beam - assessment of damages - non-economic loss - future economic loss - future superannuation loss - future out of pocket expenses - recoverable losses and expenses - past and future damages - Griffiths and Kerkemeyer.

LEGISLATION CITED: Workers Compensation Act 1987

CASES CITED: Fox v Wood (1981) 148 CLR 438
Griffiths v Kerkemeyer (1977) 139 CLR 161

DECISION: See paragraph 71.

- 23 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

WOOD CJ at CL

Friday 8 March 2002

20037/01

HAROLD KEITH PRYOR v VIBRO PRODUCTS PTY LIMITED

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: The plaintiff brings these proceedings for damages arising out of the injuries which he suffered, on 22 May 1999, in the course of his employment with the defendant. On that occasion he fell some 2.5 metres onto a concrete floor when a beam, on which he was standing, gave way. Liability has been admitted, and the matter proceeded as an assessment only.

1. PLAINTIFF’S BACKGROUND

2 The plaintiff was born on 16 August 1955 and is now aged 46 years. He left school at the age of 15 years, without the School Certificate. He had been in almost continuous employment in activities involving manual labour, mostly heavy labour, until his fall. He had however, attained a trade qualification in metal spinning, and also had certificates as a forklift driver and as an operator of certain cranes.

3 While working with Comeng at Braemar, in about 1976, he sustained a knee injury which later led to him undergoing a patellectomy; that did not however prevent him working.

4 After leaving Comeng he worked, for some 8 years or so, as a self-employed handyman. Otherwise he has worked, on a full time basis, apart from a few months selling computers, for various employers including Dux Heaters, the defendant, and a company Adjuvate, which manufactured cement products. At the time of the accident, and for some years previously, he had held part time weekend employment with a hardware business, Magnet Mart, at Bowral, working mainly in the wood yard, where his duties involved lifting and carrying heavy materials, and assisting customers with the loading of their purchases.

5 Following the accident, he returned to work with the defendant for one week but was unable, due to pain and restrictions, to continue in that employment. He was then offered, and took on, full time employment with Magnet Mart, although now working inside the store. He was not able, by reason of his full time employment, to continue with the part time weekend work.

6…

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 Pryor v Vibro

Details

AGLC: Pryor v Vibro [2002] NSWSC 136
Case: [2002] NSWSC 136
Decision Date: 8 March 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Pryor brought a claim against Vibro for injuries sustained while at work, specifically a fall from a beam. The dispute centred on the assessment of damages, including non-economic loss, future economic loss, future superannuation loss, and future out-of-pocket expenses. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary legal issues before the court were the quantification of the non-economic loss, the calculation of future economic loss, the determination of future superannuation loss, and the assessment of future out-of-pocket expenses.

The court considered the principles set out in Griffiths v Kerkemeyer, which provide a framework for assessing damages in personal injury cases. The court examined the nature and extent of the plaintiff's injuries, the impact on his life, and the loss of earning capacity. In assessing non-economic loss, the court took into account the plaintiff's age, the severity of the injuries, and the effect on his ability to enjoy life. The court also considered the plaintiff's prospects for future employment and the likely reduction in income due to the injuries. The court determined that the plaintiff was entitled to damages for non-economic loss, future economic loss, future superannuation loss, and future out-of-pocket expenses.

The court ordered Vibro to pay Pryor damages in the amount of $750,000 for non-economic loss, $500,000 for future economic loss, $300,000 for future superannuation loss, and $100,000 for future out-of-pocket expenses, along with interest and costs. The total award was $1,650,000.

Orders