Ruvuta v Jaderberg

Case [2024] QDC 107

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Ruvuta v Jaderberg & Anor [2024] QDC 107

PARTIES:

MOISE RUVUTA
(plaintiff)

v

NILS BERTIL JADERBERG
(first defendant)

and

RACQ INSURANCE LIMITED
ABN 50 009 704 152
(second defendant)

FILE NO:

4/22

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Claim

ORIGINATING COURT:

Cairns

DELIVERED ON:

12 July 2024

DELIVERED AT:

Cairns

HEARING DATE:

26 & 27 October 2023, 9 February 2024.

JUDGE:

Morzone KC DCJ

ORDER:

1.   Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendants for $124,456.89 plus interest on the amount for past economic loss.

2.   I will hear the parties further on the issue of costs.

3.   Unless either party applies for, or the parties otherwise agree to, a different costs order within 14 days of this judgment, I will also order that the defendants pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceeding (including reserved costs) to be assessed on the standard basis.

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – motor vehicle accident – plaintiff was injured in car collision – liability admitted.

DAMAGES – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL – multiple injuries claimed – credit of plaintiff - nature and scope of injury – assessment of damages.
LEGISLATION:

Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld).
Civil Liability Regulation 2014 (Qld)
CASES:

Ballesteros v Chidlow [2006] QCA 323

Brooks v Zammit [2011] QSC 181

Chappel v Hart (1998) 195 CLR 232, 156 ALR 517

Clayton Utz (a Firm) v Dale (2015) 47 VR 4

Commonwealth v Amann Aviation Pty Ltd (1991) 174 CLR64

Klien v SBD Services Pty Ltd [2013] QSC 134

Bell v Mastermyne Pty Ltd [2008] QSC 331

Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298

March v E & MH Stramare Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506

Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission (1995) 182 CLR 1

Monger v Camwade [2011] QSC 097

Nucifora v AAI Limited [2013] QSC 338

Perfect v MacDonald & Anor [2012] QSC 11

Reardon-Smith v Allianz Australia Insurance [2007] QCA 211

Sagacious Legal Pty Ltd v Wesfarmers General Insurance Ltd [2011] FCAFC 5

Sutton v Hunter [2021] QSC 249

COUNSEL:

C Ryall for the Plaintiff

G C O’Driscoll for the Second Defendant

SOLICITORS:

Maurice Blackburn Lawyers for the Plaintiff

Jensen McConaghy for the Second Defendant.

Summary

  1. Eight months after arriving in Australia as a Rwandan refugee, the plaintiff was struck by a four-wheel-drive utility driven by the negligent first defendant on the morning of 10 October 2019. He was riding his bike when the turning four-wheel drive car struck him on his left side at a pedestrian crossing. He instinctively jumped up to avoid further danger after being thrown to the pavement with his bicycle. He now claims damages exceeding a quarter of a million dollars for his injuries, including a right meniscal tear resulting from the collision.

  2. Liability for the accident is not disputed, but the defendants contest the cause, nature, and extent of the injury, as well as the consequential loss and damage.

  3. The second defendant, insurer of the first defendant, asserts that the plaintiff only suffered minor injuries in the 10 October…

Continue reading Ruvuta v Jaderberg

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Ruvuta v Jaderberg [2024] QDC 107
Case
[2024] QDC 107
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved a motor vehicle accident where the plaintiff, Ruvuta, was injured and the defendant, Jaderberg, admitted liability. The primary focus of the court was to determine the measure of damages that the plaintiff was entitled to recover. The plaintiff claimed compensation for multiple injuries resulting from the accident and sought an assessment of damages. The court was required to evaluate the nature and extent of the injuries, credit the plaintiff’s personal circumstances, and determine an appropriate amount for past economic loss. The court’s task was to weigh the evidence presented regarding the injuries, their impact on the plaintiff’s life, and the financial losses incurred.

The court carefully examined the evidence provided by the plaintiff and the defendant, considering medical reports, expert opinions, and the plaintiff's testimony. In assessing the damages, the court took into account the severity of the injuries, the duration of the plaintiff’s suffering, and the financial implications of the accident. It was necessary to balance the plaintiff's claims with the admitted liability of the defendant to ensure a fair and reasonable outcome. The court also considered the plaintiff’s credit, including their age, employment status, and the potential for future rehabilitation and recovery.

Following a detailed analysis of the evidence and legal principles, the court determined that the plaintiff was entitled to damages of $124,456.89 for past economic loss, including medical expenses, lost wages, and other related costs. The court also ordered that interest be paid on this amount from the date of the accident until judgment. The court further indicated that unless the parties reached a different agreement within 14 days, the defendant would be liable for the plaintiff’s costs of the proceeding, to be assessed on the standard basis. The court scheduled a further hearing to address the issue of costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendants for $124,456.89 plus interest on the amount for past economic loss.

2. I will hear the parties further on the issue of costs.

3. Unless either party applies for, or the parties otherwise agree to, a different costs order within 14 days of this judgment, I will also order that the defendants pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceeding (including reserved costs) to be assessed on the standard basis.

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.