Rod Stewart v Aoki Tsueneaki - [2012] ACTSC 141

ROD STEWART v AOKI TSUENEAKI
[2012] ACTSC 141 (24 August 2012)

DAMAGES – personal injury – motor vehicle collision – injuries to neck and low back – relevance of low back injury sixteen years earlier – conflicting medical opinion evidence – no issue of principle.

No. SC 187 of 2009

Judge: Master Harper
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 24 August 2012

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No. SC 187 of 2009
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY           )

BETWEEN:ROD STEWART
Plaintiff

AND:AOKI TSUENEAKI
Defendant

ORDER

Judge:  Master Harper
Date:  24 August 2012
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

judgment be entered for the plaintiff for $336,646.00.

This is a claim for damages for personal injury resulting from a motor vehicle collision.

The collision

The collision occurred on Saturday 10 February 2007 on Drakeford Drive, Isabella Plains, at or near its junction with Noorooma Street. Drakeford Drive runs generally north-south. Noorooma Street forms a T-junction on the eastern side of Drakeford Drive. Drakeford Drive in that general area is divided into two carriageways, each two lanes wide and separated by a lightly timbered grass median strip. Noorooma Street for westbound traffic has a single lane for vehicles crossing the southbound carriageway to turn right and travel north in Drakeford Drive, with a slip lane designed for left-turning vehicles to travel south on Drakeford Drive. The slip lane is separated from Noorooma Street proper by a large painted triangle on the road surface which contains a smaller concrete triangle. There is a give-way sign for westbound traffic in Noorooma Street, at its intersection with the southbound carriageway of Drakeford Drive. Drakeford Drive is a major arterial suburban road with a speed limit of 80 km/h.
The statement of claim asserts that the collision occurred at about 10.00 am, and this is admitted in the defence. The only oral evidence about the collision was given by the plaintiff, who said that it had happened on a Saturday evening, and that he was on his way home from a rugby game at Bruce stadium. The history given by the plaintiff to one of the defendant’s doctors (Dr Pascall) was that the accident had happened at about 10.00 pm, and I accept that that was correct notwithstanding the pleadings. Hence it must have been dark and the plaintiff and the defendant must have had their headlights on. There is photographic evidence of good overhead lighting in the area.
It had been raining earlier in the evening and the road surface was wet. The plaintiff was driving south in the left lane. He saw the defendant’s vehicle approaching from his left. The vehicle stopped at the give-way sign, apparently preparatory to crossing the southbound carriageway to travel north. The vehicle then proceeded into the intersection, and into the plaintiff’s path, in the process commencing to turn left. The plaintiff braked and swerved to his right to try to avoid a collision, but the defendant continued into the right southbound lane of Drakeford Drive,…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Rod Stewart v Aoki Tsueneaki and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2012] ACTSC 141
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Rod Stewart, sued the defendant, Aoki Tsueneaki, seeking damages for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle collision. The main issues were the extent of the injuries, the relevance of a prior back injury, and the impact of the collision on the plaintiff’s life. The court found that the defendant's negligence caused the collision and that the plaintiff suffered serious injuries to his neck and back. The court accepted the medical evidence that the collision aggravated a pre-existing back condition, leading to significant ongoing pain and disability. The court awarded damages for pain and suffering, future medical expenses, loss of earning capacity, and loss of capacity to perform domestic tasks, totaling $336,646.00. The court rejected the argument that the plaintiff’s prior back injury significantly influenced the current condition and found that the plaintiff’s ongoing symptoms were primarily due to the recent collision. The decision highlights the importance of expert medical evidence in personal injury cases and the court's role in weighing conflicting opinions to determine the appropriate compensation.

Orders