Reitano v Shearer - [2014] QSC 44

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Reitano v Shearer & Anor [2014] QSC 44

PARTIES:

Monica-Leigh REITANO

(Plaintiff)

v

Charmaine Joy SHEARER

(First Defendant)

and

RACQ Insurance Limited ABN 50 009 704 152

FILE NO:

S52/2011

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Civil

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court, Mackay

DELIVERED ON:

14 March 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Townsville

HEARING DATE:

15, 16, 17 July 2013

JUDGE:

North J

ORDER:

1. Judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant in the sum of $139,026.

2. Within 14 days the parties make submissions in writing upon the question of costs.

CATCHWORDS:

DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT – QUANTUM – where plaintiff suffered personal injuries in rear end collision – where liability admitted – assessment of damages pursuant to the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) – ISV assessment – where assessment of general damages, past and future economic loss and damages for care and services in issue

LEGISLATION:

Civil Liability Regulation 2003

Civil Liability Act 2003

CASES:

Land v Dahliwal & Anor [2012] QSC 360

Malec v J.C. Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638

March v E & M H Stramare Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506

COUNSEL

G F Crow SC with P W Moore for the plaintiff

K Howe for the defendants

SOLICITORS:

Eureka Legal Pty Ltd for the plaintiff

Cooper Grace Ward for the defendants

The plaintiff claims to have been injured in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 18 January 2008. She was then 17 years old (date of birth 7 May 1990). At the time of the trial she was 23 years old. The second defendant has admitted liability for the accident and the issue for determination is the quantum of damages.

As a consequence of the accident the plaintiff in her statement of claim claims she sustained:

(a) a thoracic prolapse at the T10/T11 level;

(b) a chronic musculo-ligamentous strain to the thoracic spine;

(c) a chronic musculo-ligamentous strain to the lumbar spine;

(d) a chronic adjustment disorder with depressed and anxious mood; and/or

(e) a pain disorder.

In evidence the plaintiff said that she was stationary behind another vehicle in a line of vehicles at an intersection with a roundabout when the vehicle she was driving was hit from behind by a four wheel drive with a bull bar. The vehicle she was driving[1] was propelled forward by the forces of the collision and, by her estimate, “at least five metres” and towards the left into a bicycle lane.
[1] See exhibit 11.

Much of the plaintiff’s evidence-in-chief concerning the injuries she sustained and the consequent pain and suffering and other effects upon her amenity of life and her employment was given in the form of a signed written statement by her that was tendered into evidence when she gave evidence before me.[2]
[2] Exhibit P1, statement dated 15 July 2013.

In that statement she said:

“6. I experienced some mild initial lower thoracic back pain but was able to get out of the vehicle and exchange…

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 Reitano v Shearer

Details

AGLC: Reitano v Shearer [2014] QSC 44
Case: [2014] QSC 44
Decision Date: 14 March 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Reitano v Shearer involved the plaintiff, who had suffered personal injuries in a motor vehicle accident, seeking damages against the second defendant, who had admitted liability. The dispute centred on the assessment of damages, including general damages, past and future economic loss, and damages for care and services, under the provisions of the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld). The case was heard in a relevant court of law where the plaintiff argued for a comprehensive assessment of the damages incurred due to the injuries sustained in the accident.

The court was tasked with determining the appropriate quantum of damages to be awarded to the plaintiff. This involved evaluating the general damages for pain and suffering, any past economic loss incurred due to the accident, and the future economic loss anticipated as a result of the injuries. Additionally, the court had to consider the damages for care and services, which included the costs associated with the ongoing care and support required by the plaintiff. The key legal issue was the application of the statutory framework provided by the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) to accurately quantify the damages owed to the plaintiff.

The court meticulously assessed each component of the damages claimed. It considered the nature and extent of the injuries, the impact on the plaintiff's quality of life, and the necessity for ongoing care and support. The court also reviewed the evidence provided regarding the economic losses, both past and future, and the reasonable costs associated with the care and services required. Based on this analysis, the court determined that the total damages to be awarded to the plaintiff amounted to $139,026. The court provided a detailed breakdown of how this figure was reached, taking into account all relevant factors and statutory provisions.

The final orders of the court mandated that judgment be entered in favour of the plaintiff against the second defendant, with the sum of $139,026 awarded as damages. Additionally, the court instructed the parties to submit written submissions within 14 days regarding the allocation of costs between the parties. This decision provided a clear resolution to the dispute regarding the quantum of damages, ensuring that the plaintiff received appropriate compensation for the injuries sustained in the motor vehicle accident.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant in the sum of $139,026.

2. Within 14 days the parties make submissions in writing upon the question of costs.

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.

CITATION:	Reitano v Shearer & Anor [2014] QSC 44
PARTIES:	Monica-Leigh REITANO (Plaintiff) v Charmaine Joy SHEARER (First Defendant) and RACQ Insurance Limited ABN 50 009 704 152
FILE NO:	S52/2011
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Civil
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court, Mackay
DELIVERED ON:	14 March 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Townsville
HEARING DATE:	15, 16, 17 July 2013
JUDGE:	North J
ORDER:	1. Judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant in the sum of $139,026. 2. Within 14 days the parties make submissions in writing upon the question of costs.
CATCHWORDS:	DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT – QUANTUM – where plaintiff suffered personal injuries in rear end collision – where liability admitted – assessment of damages pursuant to the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) – ISV assessment – where assessment of general damages, past and future economic loss and damages for care and services in issue
LEGISLATION:	Civil Liability Regulation 2003 Civil Liability Act 2003
CASES:	Land v Dahliwal & Anor [2012] QSC 360 Malec v J.C. Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638 March v E & M H Stramare Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506
COUNSEL	G F Crow SC with P W Moore for the plaintiff K Howe for the defendants
SOLICITORS:	Eureka Legal Pty Ltd for the plaintiff Cooper Grace Ward for the defendants