Rodger v Johnson

[2013] QSC 117

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Rodger v Johnson [2013] QSC 117

PARTIES:

TAMARA JANE RODGER
(plaintiff)

v

SANDRIA JOHNSON
(first defendant)

AND

SUNCORP METWAY INSURANCE LTD
ABN 83 075 695 966
(second defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BS 1801 of 2012

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Claim

DELIVERED ON:

6 May 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

13 - 15 November 2012

JUDGE:

Jackson J

ORDERS:

The judgment of the court is that:

1. the plaintiff do recover the sum of  $400,566.37 from the defendants;

2. the defendants pay the plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding up to and including 16 August 2012 to be assessed on the standard basis on the District Court scale; and

3. the plaintiff pay the defendants’ costs of and incidental to the proceeding on and from 17 August 2012 to be assessed on the standard basis on the Supreme Court scale.

CATCHWORDS:

DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – QUANTUM – Where dispute as to various heads of damages – general damages - ISV of multiple injuries - future loss of earning capacity - appropriate methodology for prospect of improvement - 6 month threshold for gratuitous past care – future medication and treatment expenses

Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld), s 51, s 61, s 62
Civil Liability Regulation 2003 (Qld), s 6, schedule 3, schedule 4

Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd v Kerr[2012] NSWCA 13, cited
Backo & Anor [2006] QSC 129, cited           
Ballesteros v Chidlow & Anor [2005] QSC 280, cited          
Clement v Carroll v Comber and Anor [2006] QDC 146,     cited
Johansson v Hare and Anor [2006] QSC 223, cited 
Malec v GC Hutton Pty Ltd [1990] HCA 20; (1990) 169 CLR 638, followed
Munzer v Johnstone [2008] QSC 162, cited  
Reardon-Smith v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd[2007] QCA 211, cited       
Wynn v New South Wales Insurance Ministerial Corporation [1995] HCA 53; (1995) 184 CLR 485, cited

COUNSEL:

RC Morton for the plaintiff
RJ Lynch for the defendants

SOLICITORS:

McInnes Wilson Lawyers for the plaintiff
Jensen McConaghy Solicitors for the defendants

1. JACKSON J:  At about 6:15 pm on 4 June 2009, when the plaintiff Ms Rodger’s motor scooter collided with the motor car driven by the first defendant, the plaintiff’s injuries appeared minor.  As it has turned out, they were more significant than first thought, both physically and psychologically.  Much of what has ensued is not in dispute.  In assessing the quantum of damages for her injuries as damages for negligence, it remains to determine how extensive her remaining impairments are and what the possibilities are for the future.

1. At the time of the collision, the plaintiff was almost 27 years old.  She had completed secondary school in 1999 and obtained an OP 13 level for matriculation.  She was an overseas exchange student for the year following.  On return to Australia, I infer in 2001, she commenced a Bachelor of Arts university degree course but did not progress there beyond six months.  Some time…