Roots v Trussmaster Pty Ltd
[2003] QSC 348
•17 October 2003
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Roots v Trussmaster Pty Ltd [2003] QSC 348
PARTIES:
GRAHAM ROOTS
(first plaintiff)
RAYDENE PTY LTD ACN 010 394 966
(second plaintiff)
v
TRUSSMASTER PTY LTD ACN 010 277 899
(defendant)
and
AXA INSURANCE AUSTRALIA LIMITED
ACN 007 214 155
(first third party)
and
CIC INSURANCE LTD ACN 004 079 880
(second third party)FILE NO/S:
SC No 6703 of 1998
DIVISION:
Supreme Court
DELIVERED ON:
17 October 2003
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
14 October 2003
JUDGE:
White J
ORDER:
1. The defendant pay the first plaintiff the sum of $360,936.46
2. The defendant pay the plaintiffs’ costs of and incidental to the proceedings to be assessed including reserved costsCATCHWORDS:
DAMAGES – MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – METHOD OF ASSESSMENT – GENERALLY – where first plaintiff employed by second plaintiff company – where second plaintiff employed by defendant to operate a truck – where first plaintiff engaged in loading timber frames onto truck – where first plaintiff sustained serious injury
DAMAGES – MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – LOSS OF EARNINGS AND EARNING CAPACITY – EXPENSE FLOWING FROM PLAINTIFF’S INABILITY TO WORK – where plaintiff previously engaged in manual labour – where injury suffered rendered plaintiff unfit for future work of the same kind – whether plaintiff entitled to loss of income until retirement
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), s 75AD
Astley & Ors v Austrust Ltd (1999) 197 CLR 1; [1999] HCA 006, referred to
Husher v Husher & Anor (1999) 197 CLR 138; [1999] HCA 47, referred toCOUNSEL:
K N Wilson SC for the plaintiffs
No appearance for the defendantSOLICITORS:
Biggs & Biggs for the plaintiffs
No appearance for the defendant
The first plaintiff (“Mr Roots”) was employed by the second plaintiff (“Raydene”) a company of which he was the director which in turn was employed by the defendant (“Trussmaster”) to operate a truck to deliver pre-nailed wooden house frames and other timber to building sites in south east Queensland.
On the 30th July 1997 whilst loading timber frames on to the back of the truck provided by Trussmaster at its premises at Meadowbrook on the Sunshine Coast Mr Roots sustained serious injury when he fell to the ground whilst attempting to secure the load. He sought to recover damages from Trussmaster for negligence, for breach of statutory duty and compensation pursuant to s 75AD of the Trade Practices Act 1974. He no longer seeks to recover damages based on breach of statutory duty. Raydene sought damages to compensate it for the loss of income it earned from contract cartage work provided by Mr Roots. In view of the decision in Husher v Husher (1999) 197 CLR 138 no damages were sought at trial on behalf of Raydene.
Trussmaster joined two insurance companies as first and second third parties respectively because each had declined to indemnify it in respect of the plaintiffs’ claims. The second third party was associated with HIH. Leave to proceed was refused and those proceedings are stayed. The first third party obtained an order for security for costs from Trussmaster which was not complied with and Trussmaster’s proceedings against the first third party have been stayed. On 17 September 2003 Trussmaster was placed into liquidation. On 13 October 2003 Philippides J gave the plaintiffs leave to proceed against the company and excused the liquidator from further appearance in the proceedings. Accordingly, the matter proceeded before me without opposition.
Mr K Wilson SC appeared for the plaintiffs. A volume of materials was tendered (Exhibit 1) containing the court documents (since this was a matter which had been instituted before the commencement of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules); statements from the first plaintiff and two employees of Trussmaster; reports from Geoff McDonald & Associates, about the manner of loading the truck; numerous medical reports; tax records for the first and second plaintiffs and material relating to special damages and gratuitous care rates. Mr Roots and his wife gave oral evidence. On 5 June 2001 the plaintiffs gave a notice to admit facts to the defendant. On 14 June 2001 the defendant disputed only a limited number of those facts particularly as related to the loading of the truck and the nature and extent of the injuries suffered by Mr Roots.
Liability
Trussmaster denies liability and contends that the plaintiffs were contributorily negligent. As raised in the reply, Astley v Austrust Ltd (1999) 197 CLR 1 precludes the application of the apportionment legislation to the contractual relationship between Trussmaster and Raydene, although it is no longer a live issue.
Trussmaster was a timber merchant with premises south of Brisbane. It manufactured timber frames which were delivered pre-configured to building sites as well as providing loose timber for carpenters to use for housing frames and also provided other sundry timber. Mr Roots had owned a Hino crane truck which he used in sub-contracting work as a carrier prior to working for Trussmaster. When he commenced working for Trussmaster in late 1996 he sold the truck to Trussmaster but continued to use it. Trussmaster had wanted to employ him directly but his accountant had advised him to continue to be employed by Raydene because he was in receipt of a pension from the NSW Police Service. The work with Trussmaster was his sole job.
The house frames were made on the premises in an assembly line. After the lengths of timber were cut to the appropriate size they were nailed together by a nail gun within the cutting machine. The frames were stacked at the end of the assembly line in packs of approximately one metre in height depending on the size of the house and strapped by metal strapping. Mr Roots said that the pressure on the men working on the assembly line was such that on occasions the nail gun ran out of nails before the worker was aware of this and sometimes missed nailing parts of the frame. Mr Colin Maunder, a carrier for Trussmaster, explained things a little differently. He said that the men, in effect, were complacent because the nailing was done by machine and assumed no error could occur and did little or nothing to check two malfunctions – the machine running out of nails before reloading, and the nails jamming in the machine. Both Mr Maunder and Mr Roots commented on the lack of quality control of the frames in the assembly process. Mr Roots said that on numerous occasions he had taken packs of frames straight from the end of the assembly line without any inspection having occurred. Complaints by builders and by carriers who identified problems when the frames gave way when they were loading them meant some greater vigilance was exercised for a short period and then ceased.
The loading process involved Mr Roots positioning the truck beside the frames which had to be delivered. For a usual delivery he would transport at least two bundles of frames, a bundle of bracing ply and a bundle of ancillary timber. It was his practice and one that he used on 30 July 1997 to climb on top of the load and position the chains which were used to connect the load to the crane. The crane was used to lift the frames up onto the bed of the truck. Once the frames were on the truck Mr Roots climbed onto the load to take the chain off the crane hook. He left the chains in place to aid unloading at the building site. Usually Mr Roots needed to climb onto the load about four times during loading. Once the load was in place the tie-down straps located on the side of the truck were thrown over the top of the load and tensioned on the other side. Mr Roots would then get back on top of the load, about 3 ½ - 4 metres above ground level, to check that the load was secure. Mr Roots developed this system of loading the truck himself. Sometimes, but not often, he was assisted by a Trussmaster yard employee. He had never been given any instruction about truck loading from anyone at Trussmaster although there was a yard supervisor in the person of Fred Cook. Mr Roots said on many occasions he told Mr Cook about loading problems particularly parts of frames not being nailed or properly nailed. As mentioned, Mr Maunder had made similar complaints and Mr M Finlay, another employee, at least had noted the problem. It was not possible for a carrier to see whether the nails were in or not because there was an impression in the pine whether or not the nail was in the gun. As a result, drivers standing on the frame would quite often fall forward into the load when the joint collapsed because of want of fixation.
On 30 July 1997 Mr Roots had done delivery jobs early in the morning and returned to Trussmaster’s premises to pick up a load of two packs of timber wall frames. He transferred the load from a semi-trailer parked in the yard onto his truck which when loaded was approximately 3.5 metres from the ground. He moved his truck forward to pick up a smaller load of timber to go out with that order. He used the chains to lift the smaller load on to the top of the frames. He climbed on top of the load, he thinks for about the third time, to release the chains from the crane’s hook. He was about to climb down when the stud on which he was standing gave way beneath his foot and he fell over the side of the truck onto the ground. He was rendered unconscious by the fall the brunt of which was taken on his wrists. He recovered consciousness in the Logan Hospital.
Mr Martyn Finlay, an employee forklift/driver with Trussmaster, was assisting Mr Roots to load his truck. While he was underneath the truck pulling out a strap to throw it up to Mr Roots, Mr Roots had climbed on to the top of the load to complete tying it down. He saw Mr Roots fall, probably hitting the leg of the crane on his way down. He thought he fell face-first and this is reflected in the fracture of around his eye socket. To Mr Finlay’s observation Mr Roots was a safe and diligent worker. He could not recall ever being given any specific instructions about loading or unloading the frames. He said that it was common knowledge that it was necessary to stand on the studs of the frames because the noggins would break.
Mr Geoff McDonald, an engineer, prepared two reports for Geoff McDonald & Associates. The first report was theoretical relating to safety issues in respect of loading trucks. The second, after inspection of the truck partially loaded at Trussmaster’s premises, suggested, obviously it might be thought, that where falls of greater than 2.4 metres are possible then greater effort is required to ensure that the fall does not occur. He noted that in other industries, for example loading fuel tankers, loading gantries are used to access heights above the tanker. After inspection he concluded that a light frame extending the length of the truck to which winch straps could be fixed could overcome the need to climb on the load. The crane could be used to lift the frame up and across the truck and lower it so that the straps could be taken from the frame and attached to the tie-rail, preparatory to being tightened. This would enable the straps to be placed in position without twisting. The lifting frame could be carried adjacent to the tie-rail. No doubt other ways of avoiding climbing on top of the load could be readily devised.
Mr McDonald suggested two methods for improving the quality control of the nailing process, namely, to organise the nail gun so that it did not fire unless a nail was in position, and to have a system for checking that all joints had been nailed.
In my view Trussmaster failed in at least two respects in the obligations in which it owed to Mr Roots. Since it was well-known that carriers climbed up on the loads and used the frames as a walking platform when securing the loads, it was obliged to ensure by a system of quality control inspection that the frames were nailed so as to bear the weight of those who walked on them during the loading process (whatever its obligation to the user of the frames). That the frame might collapse under weight was not fanciful because there had been numerous falls, fortunately not serious, in the past into the loads due to want of or defective nailing and about which complaint had been made.
More significantly, Trussmaster failed to implement a safe system of loading the trucks which could have been put in place with, I conclude, little inconvenience or expense, for example, in the way suggested by Mr McDonald. The shortcomings of the system of loading trucks were well known to Trussmaster through its yard supervisor Fred Cook and, no doubt, the many complaints which would have filtered through to management.
There was no contributory negligence proved against Mr Roots.
Liability under s 75AD of the Trade Practices Act is predicated upon a corporation in trade or commerce supplying goods manufactured by it which have a defect which causes an individual injury. Trussmaster admitted that is was a relevant corporation. I am satisfied that the frame had a defect in as much as it failed to have a nail where it should have which induced Mr Roots to rely on it as a safe platform. As a consequence of that defect he suffered injury. The manufacturer is liable to compensate the injured person for the amount of loss suffered. I am satisfied that Mr Roots has proved the requisite elements of s 75AD and Trussmaster is liable on that basis, as well as in negligence.
Quantum
Mr Roots was born on 22 August 1945 in Sydney. He left school at 14 and worked as a spray-painter for 4 years and then at a variety of jobs for three years. He joined the NSW Police Service in 1966 when he was 21. He spent 15 years as a NSW police officer working primarily in traffic and recruitment. He sustained serious injuries when he was stuck by a motor vehicle in the course of his duties in 1975. Apart from other injuries the most serious was an abdominal injury which required a splenectomy and the loss of half of his pancreas. He remained in the Police Service for a further six years and then was retired due to ill health in 1981. As a consequence of the abdominal injuries he has developed diabetes.
Following discharge he moved to Queensland and bought a fresh produce business which was not successful but he was able to recover the purchase price. He bought a crane truck and commenced sub-contracting as a carrier employed by his family company, Raydene. He worked as a truck driver/carrier for in excess of 15 years before commencing work for Trussmaster as had been described.
After his fall Mr Roots was taken by private car to the Logan General Hospital.
X-rays showed a trans-scaphoid perilunate dislocation of the right wrist and a comminuted intra-articular fracture to the base of the first metacarpal of the left thumb. He also suffered a fracture of the right zygoma and orbital floor. He was given analgesia and the trans-scaphoid perilunate dislocation was reduced. At his request he was transferred to Sunnybank Private Hospital.
A number of reports from Dr Gregory Couzens, hand surgeon, who undertook Mr Roots’ care and treatment, have been tendered. The fracture of the orbital floor was revealed on a CT scan. Open reduction and internal fixation of the fractured right scaphoid occurred on 31 July 1997. A closed reduction under x-ray control and percutaneous k-wire fixation was undertaken for the left thumb. He undertook rehabilitation at the Belmont Hand Rehabilitation Unit.
Mr Roots’ wrists and lower arms were immobilised on plaster slabs, initially, and then in splints for approximately 3 months. Further surgery was undertaken on 7 June 1999. The fracture through the base of the left thumb metacarpal had healed with incongruity of the joint and Mr Roots had persistent pain. Dr Couzens reconstructed the ligament and performed a tendon interposition arthroplasty. Mr Roots’ hand and arm was again immobilised and he again received treatment at the Belmont Hand Rehabilitation Unit. He attended the clinic approximately 11 times in respect of both procedures.
Mr Roots experienced severe pain in his hands. He now complains of a cramping pain which occurs after use in his right wrist. This results in the fingers painfully flexing into the palm and which have to be levered out. The pain extends from the wrist to the forearm. On the left side he experiences a cramping pain which occurs after use. For example, using a whipper-snipper brings on the pain after a short period. His hand cramps after approximately two hours of driving. He experiences a tingling sensation to the surgical scar on the left side. Although he can lift he is unable to do so repetitively or for a prolonged period and is not able to lift anything heavy. Ms Lesley Stephenson, an occupation therapist assessed his performance: his functional strength measured a deficit at 14% on his right wrist and 37.4% in his left thumb. He experiences a sharp pain at the side of his face associated with the orbital fracture.
Dr Couzens described Mr Roots’ injuries as “severe” to both upper limbs. He concluded that the fracture of the thumb and the trans-scaphoid perilunate dislocation were “severe injuries and have a guarded outcome, particularly in someone who was performing relatively manual work”. Dr Couzens noted that the symptoms were appropriate and a direct consequence of the injuries suffered in a fall. He noted that it was “unlikely that any further intervention would be of benefit to” Mr Roots. Dr Couzens concluded that Mr Roots has suffered a total upper extremity impairment on the left side of 15% and on the right side of 15%. He observed that he could not be expected to return to work as a truck driver and that his ongoing symptoms suggest that he would be unable to do prolonged tasks requiring grip or pinch without experiencing severe pain and cramping in his hands. Dr Couzens concluded that Mr Roots would be suited only to work which did not require performing such tasks and although it may be possible to find driving work there could be no loading. He noted that because of his age he would not be a good candidate for vocational retraining.
Dr Peter Millroy, hand surgeon, in 1998 described Mr Roots’ injuries as severe. He estimated a permanent impairment of 15% of the right upper limb and 10% of the left upper limb due to the injuries.
Dr James Downes, orthopaedic consultant, prepared a report on 27 September 2000 for Mr Roots’ disability insurer. He described the injury to both wrists as significant
“This man by sheer bad luck had two significant injuries of his hands.
They may not sound much to the lay person but from the time they were first diagnosed, one could tell there were going to troubles with this man’s wrists.”
He observed that the management of the injuries had been excellent and that his prognosis was straightforward, namely, that his wrists would not improve further and he “will remain permanently incapacitated for his previous job”.
Mr Roots complained of extreme irritability in the years following his injuries. He suffered sleep disturbance, headaches, restlessness and agitation particularly at his inability to be a financial provider to his household. By the time he saw Dr Gary Persley, a consultant psychiatrist in August 2000 for the purposes of a medico-legal examination, he had been taking Zoloft daily for about six months. This was an anti-depressant and led to an improvement in his symptoms. Dr Persley concluded that in the four months following the injury when he experienced a high level of frustration due to the loss of his independence, requiring assistance with personal hygiene and feeding, Mr Roots developed a major depressive disorder. The key features were irritable mood, sleep disturbance, generalised muscle tension with headaches, preoccupation with worry about his future and episodes of tearfulness. Dr Persley noted that that condition had remained undiagnosed and untreated for two years. In his opinion the development of that disorder was directly as a result of the accident.
In Dr Persley’s opinion Mr Roots has continued to suffer an adjustment disorder with depressed mood. He noted that he was realistically worried about his future financial security and frustrated by his inability to return to work and the permanent incapacities associated with the injuries to his wrists. Loss of work, the capacity to provide for his family and the loss of recreation was a continuing aggravating factor contributing to his depressed feelings. In Dr Persley’s opinion the most useful treatment would be assistance in finding alternative meaningful employment since his psychiatric condition was secondary on his inability to work.
Mr Roots said he had ceased taking the anti-depressant drug. He takes 6 to 8 Panadol daily for his ongoing pain.
Ms Stephenson explored in great detail Mr Roots’ residual physical problems and his capacity for work. He reported to Ms Stephenson a whole range of difficulties in his daily life which to a large extent might be described as irritants rather than anything more serious but which affect his quality of life. For example, he has difficulty using both hands getting in and out of the bath and washing his hair; difficulty eating with a knife and fork particularly cutting meat; difficulty in peeling or slicing vegetables during preparation; difficulty wiping up dishes, scrubbing pots and pans; difficulty in performing heavier cleaning tasks; occasionally experiencing difficulty getting out of a lounge chair needing to use his knuckles rather than his hands; he cannot lay his hands flat on the ground to push up; difficulty with most garden tasks and home maintenance repairs and car repairs; cramping after writing for a short period. These were all activities in which he engaged prior to injury.
Ms Stephenson canvassed possible employment options. Mr Roots had obtained a bus licence but his enquiries in and about his home area indicated a long waiting list for casual bus driving positions and he is further compromised by his diabetic condition. He was interested in real estate agency work but his enquiries had indicated amongst those he knew that it was difficult to make an income given his age and lack of experience. He was also interested in obtaining some type of small business which he and his wife could operate but needed a capital sum to do so. He perused the situations vacant in the newspapers every Saturday. Ms Stephenson noted his barriers to work particularly the aggravation of his hand pain through performing physical activities. She noted some disadvantages in seeking open employment also due to his diabetes and age. Ms Stephenson concluded that the injury has significantly impacted on Mr Roots’ employment prospects and had it not been for his injury “there is no doubt he would have been able to continue in truck driving work indefinitely. It is not unusual for truck drivers to continue working in their seventies.”
I have no doubt that Mr Roots is anxious to obtain employment within his capacity and the various reports, including a lengthy analysis from the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service, attest to his readiness for employment should he be able to find suitable work. The recommendation from the rehabilitation counsellor who assisted him in August 1998 was that he undergo a hand assessment so that his ability to acquire computer skills could be investigated. It was thought that should he be able to operate a computer for a considerable amount of time there may be some prospect of employment in a sedentary way with Queensland Transport. Mr Roots has no computer skills and has not had any success in that field.
In all the reports placed before the court, Mr Roots’ honesty in distinguishing those of his disabilities which related to his accident whilst in the Police Service and those flowing from the subject accident were mentioned. He impressed all those who assessed him with his desire for rehabilitation and participation in financially rewarding employment. The quantum of his claim is restrained. He has the support of his wife who has given him considerable assistance throughout this difficult period.
On 13 December 2002 the plaintiff was diagnosed with bowel cancer. He underwent surgical procedures after radiotherapy to reduce the tumour and is presently half way through a program of six chemotherapy treatments. His medical specialists give him a good prognosis.
Pain suffering and loss of the amenities of life for the past and into the future
Apart from the matters which have been mentioned Mr Roots’ principal pre-injury leisure interest was sailing which he participated in every weekend. Since his injury he has been unable to enjoy this recreational pursuit. He had just taken up golf before the injury which he enjoyed but has been unable to return to it. He was clearly a man who enjoyed working around the home and indeed had engaged in renovating properties for sale doing yard maintenance, painting and minor internal work. He is limited to two to three hours a day at best due to pain and cramping in his hands. He has tested himself against a number of activities to reach this conclusion. Mr Roots was an active, hard-working, energetic man with, it would seem, a real zest for life. He was able to deal with a serious injury many years ago and continue working at full capacity. His present pain will be ongoing for the rest of his life and he will need to take analgesia to control it. I would award the first plaintiff $55,000 to represent this head of damage.
Interest is awarded on $30,000 of that amount for 6.2 years at 2% per annum amounting to $3,720.
Past loss of income
The approach which Mr Wilson has taken to economic loss is consistent with that in Husher where a partnership or company is used as a vehicle for the distribution of income earned by the sole exertion of a plaintiff. The income which Mr Roots received from Raydene has been averaged over the three years prior to the accident. This amounts to $40,593.66. The relevant tax rates for an individual have been applied to that amount (Exhibit 2) being an amount of $17,540. This gives a net loss of $23,000 approximately per annum, which is $442 per week. Rounding that figure off at $450 net per week and excluding any amount for 2003 due to the diagnosis and treatment for cancer gives an amount of $127,350. It may have been that but for the injury to his wrists and hands he may have been able to do some work in the course of 2003 but the approach has been to seek nothing for this period. Interest is allowed on that amount at 4.5% for 6.2 years being sum of $35,530. Mr Roots has noted over the period since his accident that Trussmaster has stayed in business and on the morning of the trial notwithstanding liquidation business under the Trussmaster sign was still being carried on. In any event he has found work as a carrier regularly in the period since leaving the Police Service.
Loss of future earning capacity
Mr Roots makes a claim of a loss of earning capacity of $450 net per week for seven years to age 65. This given an amount of $139,230 which should be discounted for earlier retirement than planned and a negative prognosis for the cancer as well as other adversities. Notwithstanding Mr Root’s keenness to work there is nothing obviously available but the discount will take any possible extra earnings into account. Mr Wilson submitted that the calculated figure should be reduced by approximately 40% to take account of adverse contingencies leaving a figure of $100,000 which is allowed.
Past and future care and assistance
Mr Roots makes a modest claim for services rendered to him, primarily by his wife but also their adult children, particularly following the accident and the various operative procedures but continuing to the present day. Prior to injury both Mr and Mrs Roots said that he did all the outside work and house maintenance and shared inside tasks such as vacuuming and kitchen work.
Mr Roots was quite incapacitated following his injuries. Both his hands and lower arms were on plaster slabs and then in splints requiring assistance with all aspects of daily life including showering, dressing, shaving, cleaning teeth, eating, changing dressing, as well as with all the household and external house and garden tasks which previously he had carried out. When the casts were removed he needed to be driven to medical appointments and to be assisted with long distance driving as well as the outside house maintenance, mowing lawns, gardening and other matters. The claim made for the first period from August 1997 when he was discharged from hospital to the end of October 1997 is for 42 hours per week at $10 per hour. In the period from 1 November to April 1998 a period of 7 hours per week is claimed at $11 per hour. Thereafter until the second operation, 1 hour per week is claimed. This is plainly understated since Mr Roots needs long distance driving assistance and lawn, garden and domestic maintenance work assistance.
After the second operation, from 2 June 1999 to the end of July 1999 Mr Roots was immobilised in his left hand and arm. He needed assistance with shaving, dressing, changing bandages, and cutting up his food as well as being assisted to medical treatment and the other household maintenance assistance. Twenty-eight hours per week is claimed for this period at a rate of $13 per hour. The claim between 24 July and the end of August 1999 is a claim for 7 hours approximately per week which involved driving the medical appointments and treatment and lawn and garden and other domestic maintenance at $13 per hour. From the beginning of September 1999 to 31 December 2002 a claim of 1 hour per week is claimed for lawn, garden maintenance and other domestic tasks at $13.30 per hour. No claim is made for 2003.
For the future with a life expectancy of 20.24 years a claim is made for 1 hour per week at $13.30 per hour. This is a modest claim and it was clear from the evidence of Mrs Roots that she and the wider family have taken over tasks previously carried out by Mr Roots which would take much longer than 1 hour per week.
I allow the claim made for past and future gratuitous care being $13,037.60 for the past together with interest at 4.5% for 6.2 years in the sum of $3,637.49 and for the future discounted by 20% in the amount of $7,000.
Special damages
Travelling expenses to receive treatment are claimed and allowed at $707.50. Medical expenses and refunds to the Health Insurance Commission are claimed in the sum of $8,258.98. Mr Roots took prescription Panadeine Forte for about a year before he commenced taking Panadol. No claim is made for the first year but Mrs Roots gave evidence that the cost of Panadol which she purchases for her husband is $14 per packet per fortnight. That amounts to $2,002. Interest on that amount for 5.5 years at 4.5% is $495.50. Interest on travelling expenses is $197.39. The total amount of special damages allowed is $10,968.48 plus $692.89 for interest.
Future pharmaceutical needs
The cost per week for Panadol which Mr Roots will require so far as can be predicted for the rest of his statistical life of 20 years is $7.50 per week. Discounted on the 5% tables gives a figure of $4,998. Mr Wilson has proposed that this be discounted by 25% for contingencies including the use of Panadol for conditions unrelated to the injuries not sustained in the accident. I allow an amount of $4000 for future pharmaceutical needs.
Conclusion
In summary Mr Roots’ damages are for
Pain suffering and loss of the amenities of life for the past and future $55,000 Interest on $30,000 at 2% for 6.2 years $3,720 Past loss of income $127,350 Interest at 4.5% for 6.2 years $35,530 Loss of future earning capacity $100,000 Gratuitous past care and assistance $13,037.60 Interest thereon at 4.5% for 6.2 years $3,637.49 Future care and assistance $7000 Special damages $10,968.48 Interest on cost of travelling and pharmaceuticals at 4.5% for 6.2 years $692.89 Future pharmaceutical needs $4,000 TOTAL $360,936.46
I would like to record the careful and restrained way in which the claims made by the first plaintiff have been advanced.
Orders
There will be judgment for the first plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $360,936.46. The defendant to pay the plaintiffs’ costs of and incidental to the proceedings to be assessed including reserved costs.
0
3
1