Seiffert v Chadwick and TAC

[2021] QDC 8

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Seiffert v Chadwick and TAC [2021] QDC 8

PARTIES:

BEAU RICHARD SEIFFERT

(plaintiff)

v

JOSHUA BURTON CHADWICK

(first defendant)

and
TRANSPORT ACCIDENT COMMISSION (ABN 22 033 947 623)

(second defendant)

FILE NO:

D146 of 2019

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Maroochydore District Court

DELIVERED ON:

22 January 2021

DELIVERED AT:

Maroochydore District Court

HEARING DATE:

17 August 2020

JUDGE:

Long SC, DCJ

ORDER:

Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $456,640.30.

CATCHWORDS:

PERSONAL INJURIES – CAUSATION – SECTION 11 OF THE CIVIL LIABILITY ACT 2003 (QLD) – ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES – Where negligence was admitted by the second defendant – Whether and to what extent the plaintiff sustained any injury from the collision – Whether the consequences of such injury extend to loss of earning capacity – Assessing an appropriate measure of the plaintiff’s loss from the evidence

LEGISLATION:

Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld), ss 11, 60, 61, 62

Civil Liability Regulation 2014 (Qld), Sch 3, Sch 4, Sch 7

CASES:

Peebles v WorkCover Queensland [2020] QSC 106

Souz v CC Pty Ltd [2018] QSC 36

Strong v Woolworths Ltd (2012) 246 CLR 182

COUNSEL:

M.Grant-Taylor QC for the plaintiff

G.C.O’Driscoll for the second defendant

SOLICITORS:

VBR Lawyers for the plaintiff

Quinlan Miller & Treston for the second defendant

Introduction

1. The plaintiff’s claim is for damages for personal injury sustained in a motor vehicle collision which occurred on 7 October 2016.

2. The negligence of the first defendant, as the cause of that collision, is not in issue. It is admitted in the pleadings that at about 8:30am on 7 October 2016, the first defendant drove a Toyota Camry motor vehicle into the rear of the Toyota Yaris, in which the plaintiff was the driver. The Toyota Yaris was in a stationary position on Razorback Road, Montville facing west, immediately to the east of the intersection with Main Street.

3. However, the claims of the plaintiff as to the consequences of this event are in issue. For the plaintiff they are pleaded as encompassing:

   (a)an injury to the cervical spine; and

   (b)injury to the left shoulder girdle.

   The plaintiff further pleads, as consequences of those injuries, that:

   (a)it was necessary for him to seek and receive medical treatment;

   (b)he took analgesic medication to relieve his pain;

   (c)he underwent physiotherapy and was treated with therapeutic massages;

   (d)his sleep has been markedly diminished and disturbed;

   (e)his capacity to participate in many of his former activities, including weight training at the gym and long distance driving, has been diminished and impaired or lost altogether; and

   (f)he has suffered a permanent impairment of function of the whole person.

   His claim encompasses damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenities, past and future loss of earning capacity and incurred and expected future expenses.

4. The second defendant pleads that the plaintiff either did not sustain any injury as a consequence of the collision or only such as was minor and transitory and long since resolved. More particularly, it is pleaded that: