Turner v Turner - [2014] QDC 106

[2014] QDC 106
DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CIVIL JURISDICTION
JUDGE BAULCH SC
No. 400 of 2013
SAM LUKE TURNER Plaintiff
and
STACY NICOLE TURNER and ANOTHER Defendant
TOWNSVILLE
10.01 AM, TUESDAY, 18 MARCH 2014
JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR: Sam Turner was born on the 18^th of November 1994. He suffered a severe neck injury in a single vehicle rollover accident which occurred on the 20^th of March 2011. He was a passenger in the vehicle which was being driven by his sister. The vehicle insurer admits liability to pay damages in respect of his injuries and I am asked to assess those damages.

At the time of the accident, Sam Turner was a front seat passenger and seatbelted. As the vehicle was travelling along the highway at approximately 100 kilometres per hour in wet, rainy conditions, a tyre blew and the driver lost control of the vehicle and it careered off the highway, rolling over three or four times before coming to a halt on its side against a tree. Sam Turner was not knocked out but was dazed and shocked. He managed to extract himself from the vehicle, but noted an immediate onset of neck pain and mid back pain.

He was taken by ambulance to the Mackay Base Hospital for an assessment. X-rays and a CT scan of his cervical spine were taken and were reported as showing a burst fracture of C7 and a minor fracture of C6. He was admitted for overnight observation and then transferred to the Townsville Hospital the following day for review by a neurosurgeon.

The CT scan revealed that the burst fracture of the C7 vertebral body was accompanied by retropulsion of the central fragments. Compression was noted anteriorly with a reduction of the height of that segment by about 35 per cent. A fracture line was noted in the saggital plane through the superior endplate. The retropulsion of the central fragment was noted by about 30 per cent of the spinal canal. The degree of cord impingement, however, was not clear. Adjacent disc spaces were normal, but there was a further mild anterior compression of the C6 vertebral body noted. The compression was noted to be about 25 per cent anteriorly.

The injury was treated with a halo thoracic brace for three months and thereafter, the plaintiff wore a soft collar for about six weeks.

I was provided with hospital records from the Mackay Base Hospital and the Townsville Hospital as well as the medical records of a medical practice at Glenden. All of those records were tendered by consent, as was the only specialist material which came in the form of a report by Dr Scott Campbell, neurosurgeon, dated the 14^th of June 2013.

Dr Campbell examined Sam Turner on the 14^th of June 2013. The report records that the plaintiff complained of neck pain and stiffness and that he detailed the neck pain as occurring two or three times a week and being moderate to severe…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Turner v Turner and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2014] QDC 106
Decision Date: 18 MARCH 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Turner v Turner involved a plaintiff, Sam Turner, who suffered a severe neck injury in a car accident caused by a tyre blowout. The vehicle insurer admitted liability for the damages resulting from his injuries, and the court was tasked with assessing those damages. The primary legal issues centred on the extent of Sam Turner's injuries, the impact on his ability to work, and the resultant economic and non-economic losses. The court had to determine the appropriate compensation for these losses, including past economic loss, future economic loss, loss of superannuation benefits, and general damages.

The court meticulously examined the medical evidence and testimonies, including the plaintiff’s statements about his pain and limitations. It was clear that Sam Turner's injuries significantly impaired his ability to perform manual tasks, particularly those requiring heavy lifting, bending, or prolonged sitting. The court assessed that Turner had lost the opportunity to pursue a career in the mining industry, a reasonable expectation given his age and prior work experiences. Despite his injuries, Turner had a traineeship in mining, but his performance was hampered by the need to work slowly to avoid aggravating his neck. The court concluded that Turner's decision not to pursue a mining career was both reasonable and sensible, considering his injury and the physical demands of such work. Consequently, the court awarded damages for lost opportunities in that industry, along with compensation for past and future economic losses, superannuation losses, home assistance, and other expenses.

The final orders of the court included a comprehensive sum for general damages, past and future economic loss, interest on past economic loss, loss of superannuation, home assistance, special damages, future gymnasium expenses, and other agreed amounts. The total awarded was $572,154.08, with the defendant ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of the action on an indemnity basis.

Orders