Rendell v Todd

[2012] ACTSC 68

SUSAN BARBARA RENDELL v DAVID TODD
[2012] ACTSC 68 (8 May 2012)

PERSONAL INJURY – motor vehicle accident – nature and extent of injury – causation in relation to thoracic spine condition – income loss buffer – need for domestic care

Civil Liability Act2002 (NSW) s 5D(1)(a)

Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 45, 46

Strong v Woolworths Ltd [2012] HCA 5
Zanner v Zanner [2010] NSWCA 343

No. SC 707 of 2007

Judge:             Sidis AJ
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date:              8 May 2012

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No. SC 707 of 2007
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY           )

BETWEEN:SUSAN BARBARA RENDELL

Plaintiff

AND:DAVID TODD

Defendant

ORDER

Judge:  Sidis AJ
Date:  8 May 2012
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

(a)Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $223,648.

(b)The defendant is to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings as agreed or assessed. This order is suspended for 7 days to allow the parties to list the matter for further argument as to the appointment of costs.

(c)The exhibits are returned.

(d)My reasons are published.

1. Susan Barbara Rendell claimed damages for injuries suffered in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 16 August 2005 when the defendant’s vehicle ran into the rear of her stationary vehicle.  Liability was not in issue.  The issues were:

(a)The nature and extent of the injuries that the plaintiff suffered as a result of the accident;

(b)In particular, the extent, if any, to which the accident caused or materially contributed to injury to the plaintiff’s thoracic spine;

(c)The extent to which the plaintiff was to be compensated for general damages, loss of income earning capacity, domestic care and out of pocket expenses.

1. The plaintiff said the accident occurred when her vehicle was stationary at an intersection and the defendant’s vehicle ran into its rear.  She said the defendant was travelling at speed and although he applied his brakes his car impacted with her car with some force.  She braced herself by holding onto her steering wheel and was thrown forward and back in her seat. The plaintiff’s vehicle was not damaged.  This absence of damage was attributed to the large towbar fitted to the rear of the car.  The defendant’s vehicle was reported to be badly damaged at the front.

1. The plaintiff said that immediately after the accident she was in shock but she was able to drive home.  She developed pain in her neck and shoulders, mostly in the right shoulder and she began to suffer from severe headache.  She consulted her general practitioner, Dr Ng, on 17 August 2005 with complaints of neck and shoulder pain and headache. Dr Ng reported that the range of movement in the plaintiff’s cervical spine was restricted and that there was slight radiation of pain into right arm.  He noted tenderness at C2 and C3 and TP right Trapezius. 

1. Dr Ng recorded only one more consultation relating to injuries resulting from the accident.  This took place…