Damages—Personal injuries—Long term quadriplegic—Future medical care—Lost earning capacity—Loss of enjoyment of life—Shortened life expectancy—Basis of assessment—Review of verdict by appellate court.
Decisions
1977, February 25. The following written judgments were delivered:- BARWICK C.J. The respondent when twenty years of age suffered calamitous injuries whilst a passenger in a motor car which was involved in a road accident. She became a quadriplegic: and as well she has lost her power of speech. Though she has some limited use of her arms, so that amongst other things she can operate a typewriter, she has no hope of ever being able to drive a motor vehicle, no matter what adaptation be made. She has become an epileptic though, by the use of drugs, her epilepsy is under control. (at p564)
2. As the learned trial judge found:
"The plaintiff needs constant nursing attention. Three particular matters make this essential. Firstly, she has difficulty in breathing and this difficulty may be aggravated by an accumulation of mucus in her breathing passages which must be aspirated as soon as possible. Secondly, there is a continuing risk of the development of an infection in the urinary tract. Her urine, which drains into a bag, must be watched continuously for signs of infection. Thirdly, there is a strong likelihood that one or more pressure sores will develop if she is not regularly turned. Additionally to the matters I have mentioned there is a risk that she will have an epileptic fit or some other, and unexpected, problem which will require more or less immediate attention. It must be remembered that she lacks the ability readily to make herself understood, particularly to strangers, and this circumstance necessitates a greater degree of watchfulness on the part of those in whose charge she is than would be the case if she had her voice." (at p564)
3. The many operative procedures to which she has been subjected are fully detailed in the careful exposition by the trial judge who awarded her the sum of $300,547.50. The appeal by the present appellant to the Court of Appeal Division of the Supreme Court of New South Wales against this award was, by majority, dismissed. The ground of appeal was that the damages were excessive. In this Court, the appellant maintains his submission that the award of damages is excessive: in that connexion, the appellant points to particular matters on which he says the trial judge erred in point of law. To those I shall refer later. (at p565)
4. I have found the resolution of the appeal a matter of considerable difficulty. In the first place, the fundamental principle is that the exercise of discretion by the trial judge in the estimation of damages ought not to be interfered with by an appellate court unless the trial judge has erred in point of law or in his approach to…
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 Sharman v Evans
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Sharman v Evans [1977] HCA 8
Case
[1977] HCA 8
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Sharman v Evans concerned a dispute arising from a motor vehicle accident. The plaintiff, Sharman, suffered severe injuries in a collision with a vehicle driven by the defendant, Evans. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia.
The central legal issues before the High Court were the assessment of damages for the plaintiff's injuries, particularly concerning the recoverability of costs for future medical treatment and the appropriate compensation for loss of earning capacity. The court was required to determine the principles governing the award of damages in personal injury claims, including the extent to which future expenses and losses should be taken into account.
The High Court applied established principles of tort law relating to the assessment of damages. The court affirmed that damages should compensate the plaintiff for their actual loss. In relation to future medical expenses, the court held that only reasonably incurred expenses were recoverable, and that the plaintiff bore the onus of proving the necessity and likely cost of such treatment. Regarding loss of earning capacity, the court considered the plaintiff's pre-accident earning capacity and the impact of their injuries on their ability to earn income in the future, taking into account factors such as the likelihood of promotion and the potential for alternative employment. The court also addressed the issue of the discount rate to be applied to future losses to reflect the present value of those losses.
The High Court ultimately varied the damages awarded at trial, reducing the amount for future medical expenses and adjusting the compensation for loss of earning capacity.