Rook v Crofts - [2018] QDC 184

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Rook v Crofts & Anor [2018] QDC 184

PARTIES:

CHRISTIAN WAYNE ROOK

(Plaintiff)

and

IVAN RUSSELL CROFTS

(First Defendant)

and

QBE INSURANCE (AUSTRALIA) LTD

(Second Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

D128/2016

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING:

Civil Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

12 September 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATES:

25-27 June 2018

JUDGE:

McGill SC DCJ

ORDER:

Judgment that the Second Defendant pay the Plaintiff $593,441 including $4,654 by way of interest.

CATCHWORDS:

DAMAGES – Personal injuries – assessment – conflicting expert evidence – whether economic loss – whether damages for gratuitous care available – assessment.

Civil Liability Act 2003 s 59.

Heywood v Commercial Electrical Pty Ltd [2013] QCA 270 – applied.
Kriz v King [2007] 1 Qd R 327 – applied.
McGrory v Medina Property Services Pty Ltd [2017] QCA 234 – applied.
Mortimer v Burgess [1997] 25 MVR 463 – cited.
Shaw v Menzies [2011] QCA 197 – applied.
The Thistle Company of Australia Pty Ltd v Bretz [2018] QCA 6 – applied.
Van Gervan v Fenton (1992) 175 CLR 327 – considered.
Westfield Shopping Town Liverpool v Jevtich [2008] NSWCA 139 – cited.
Woolworths Ltd v Lawlor [2004] NSWCA 209 – cited.

COUNSEL:

R D Green for the Plaintiff

K S Howe for the Defendants

SOLICITORS:

Rowadi Lawyers for the Plaintiff

Barry & Nilsson Lawyers for the Defendants

The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident on 4 August 2013 when he was driving south along the Bruce Highway.[1] He had his two children in the rear seat of the car with him when he came to an obstruction on the highway which caused him to brake abruptly: p 11. When he did so his daughter screamed, causing him to turn his head and body around to the left so as to see her, as he thought from her scream that she had been hurt. His car was then struck from behind, evidently with some force, by a motorcycle ridden by the first defendant.[2] The plaintiff alleges that as a result of the accident he suffered injuries, both physical and psychological, and claims damages in respect of those injuries. Liability is not in issue, but there was a substantial difference between the parties at trial as to the quantum of the plaintiff’s damages. Accordingly I am concerned with the provisions of the Civil Liability Act 2003 only in respect of the assessment of damages.
[1]Exhibit 7 p 5.
[2]He was one of a number of motorcyclists who were involved in a pile up on the back of the car.

The plaintiff felt pain in his neck at once: p 12. The first defendant and other motorcyclists were apparently injured as well in the collision, and subsequently when ambulances attended the scene they were pre-occupied with the motorcyclists, and although the plaintiff spoke to one paramedic he did not receive any treatment and was taken from the scene by his father: p 11. After the accident the plaintiff felt sharp pain…

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 Rook v Crofts

Details

AGLC: Rook v Crofts [2018] QDC 184
Case: [2018] QDC 184
Decision Date: 12 September 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Rook v Crofts involved the plaintiff, Rook, suing the second defendant, Crofts, for damages arising from personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The dispute centred around the assessment of damages, particularly the economic loss and the availability of damages for gratuitous care. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The court was tasked with deciding the appropriate amount of damages to award, given conflicting expert evidence on the extent of the injuries and their impact on the plaintiff's ability to work.

The primary legal issues before the court were the determination of the quantum of damages for economic loss and the consideration of damages for gratuitous care. The plaintiff argued for a higher amount of damages, supported by expert evidence, while the defendant contested the extent of the economic loss and the need for gratuitous care. The court needed to weigh the expert opinions and decide on the appropriate compensation for the plaintiff's injuries and their impact on his life.

In delivering the judgment, the court carefully considered the conflicting expert evidence and the specific circumstances of the plaintiff's injuries. It was determined that the plaintiff had suffered significant economic loss due to his inability to work, and that damages for gratuitous care were warranted. The court assessed the evidence and concluded that the total damages payable were $593,441, inclusive of interest. This amount reflected the court's determination of the appropriate compensation for the plaintiff's injuries and their impact on his life.

The court ordered that the second defendant pay the plaintiff $593,441, including $4,654 by way of interest. This judgment reflected the court's assessment of the evidence and its determination of the appropriate compensation for the plaintiff's injuries and their impact on his life.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgment that the Second Defendant pay the Plaintiff $593,441 including $4,654 by way of interest.

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:	Rook v Crofts & Anor [2018] QDC 184
PARTIES:	CHRISTIAN WAYNE ROOK (Plaintiff) and IVAN RUSSELL CROFTS (First Defendant) and QBE INSURANCE (AUSTRALIA) LTD (Second Defendant)
FILE NO/S:	D128/2016
DIVISION:
PROCEEDING:	Civil Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Townsville
DELIVERED ON:	12 September 2018
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATES:	25-27 June 2018
JUDGE:	McGill SC DCJ
ORDER:	Judgment that the Second Defendant pay the Plaintiff $593,441 including $4,654 by way of interest.
CATCHWORDS:	DAMAGES – Personal injuries – assessment – conflicting expert evidence – whether economic loss – whether damages for gratuitous care available – assessment. Civil Liability Act 2003 s 59. Heywood v Commercial Electrical Pty Ltd [2013] QCA 270 – applied. Kriz v King [2007] 1 Qd R 327 – applied. McGrory v Medina Property Services Pty Ltd [2017] QCA 234 – applied. Mortimer v Burgess [1997] 25 MVR 463 – cited. Shaw v Menzies [2011] QCA 197 – applied. The Thistle Company of Australia Pty Ltd v Bretz [2018] QCA 6 – applied. Van Gervan v Fenton (1992) 175 CLR 327 – considered. Westfield Shopping Town Liverpool v Jevtich [2008] NSWCA 139 – cited. Woolworths Ltd v Lawlor [2004] NSWCA 209 – cited.
COUNSEL:	R D Green for the Plaintiff K S Howe for the Defendants
SOLICITORS:	Rowadi Lawyers for the Plaintiff Barry & Nilsson Lawyers for the Defendants