Thomas v BASS - [2003] WADC 134

THOMAS -v- BASS [2003] WADC 134

Last Update: 17/06/2003

THOMAS -v- BASS [2003] WADC 134
Link to Appeal:	[2006] WASCA 59
Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2003] WADC 134
Case No:	CIV:2406/2001	Heard:	20, 21 & 23 MAY 2003
Coram:	LA JACKSON DCJ	Delivered:	12/06/2003
Location:	PERTH	Supplementary Decision:
No of Pages:	11	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Damages assessed at $30 200
[Click here for Judgment in Adobe Acrobat Format ]

Parties:	GEORGINA DAPHNE THOMAS DAVID ALLEN BASS
Catchwords:	Damages Assessment of damages for shoulder injuries Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Motor Vehicle (Third Party Insurance) Act 1943 s 3C, s 3D
Case References:	Nil Nil

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : THOMAS -v- BASS [2003] WADC 134 CORAM : LA JACKSON DCJ HEARD : 20, 21 & 23 MAY 2003 DELIVERED : 12 JUNE 2003 FILE NO/S : CIV 2406 of 2001 BETWEEN : GEORGINA DAPHNE THOMAS

Plaintiff

AND

DAVID ALLEN BASS

Defendant

Catchwords:

Damages - Assessment of damages for shoulder injuries - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Motor Vehicle (Third Party Insurance) Act 1943 s 3C, s 3D

Result:

Damages assessed at $30,200

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr D R Clyne

Defendant : Mr J R Brooksby

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Friedman Lurie Singh

Defendant : Greenland Brooksby

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Nil

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

(Page 3)

1 LA JACKSON DCJ: The plaintiff's claim is for damages for personal injury arising out of a motor vehicle accident. The plaintiff was born on 14 February 1957. On 12 October 1997, when aged 40, she was driving a motor vehicle along Safety Bay Road, Safety Bay. She had stopped to turn right into the driveway of her home when she was struck in the rear by a motor vehicle driven by the defendant.

2 Liability is not in issue and this is an assessment of damages.

3 The plaintiff's claim is that she has injured her right shoulder as a result of the accident. The defendant's case is that the right shoulder problems were as a result of a pre-existing condition and that the motor vehicle accident caused no more than a temporary exacerbation.

4 The plaintiff's right to recover damages is limited by s 3C of the Motor Vehicle (Third Party Insurance) Act 1943. Subsections 2, 3 and 4 provide:

"(2) The amount of damages to be awarded for non-pecuniary loss is to be a proportion, determined according to the severity of the non-pecuniary loss, of the maximum amount that may be awarded.

(3) The maximum amount of damages that may be awarded for non-pecuniary loss is amount A, but the maximum amount may only be awarded in a most extreme case.

(4) If the amount of non-pecuniary loss is assessed to be amount B or less, no damages are to be awarded for non-pecuniary loss."

Other subsections provide for the calculation of damages when the award is greater than…

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 Thomas v BASS

Details

AGLC: Thomas v Bass [2003] WADC 134
Case: [2003] WADC 134
Decision Date: 12 JUNE 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Thomas v BASS involved a plaintiff who claimed damages for shoulder injuries sustained in an incident involving the defendant. The case was heard and determined by the relevant Australian court. The central issue was the assessment of the appropriate amount of damages for the injuries suffered by the plaintiff. The court had to consider the extent of the injuries, the impact on the plaintiff's life, and any medical evidence presented regarding the prognosis and treatment required.

The legal issues centred on the appropriate method of assessing damages for the shoulder injuries. The court had to determine whether the damages should be calculated based on the severity of the injury, the duration of any disability, or the need for future medical treatment. The court also considered whether the plaintiff had taken reasonable steps to mitigate the effects of the injury. This required a detailed examination of the evidence, including medical reports, expert testimony, and the plaintiff's own account of the incident and its aftermath.

The court carefully reviewed the evidence and concluded that the appropriate method of assessment involved considering the overall impact of the injuries on the plaintiff's life. The court found that the plaintiff had suffered significant but not permanent disability, and that the injuries required ongoing treatment but did not prevent the plaintiff from returning to work. After weighing all the factors, the court determined that the damages should be assessed at $30,200. This figure reflected the nature and extent of the injuries, the need for ongoing treatment, and the impact on the plaintiff's ability to perform daily activities.

The court's final order was that damages be paid to the plaintiff in the sum of $30,200. This decision provided a clear resolution to the dispute, offering the plaintiff compensation for the harm suffered while also taking into account the evidence regarding the prognosis and the plaintiff's efforts to manage the injury.

Orders

Orders of the court

Damages assessed at $30

200

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.