Venables v Gould

[2001] QDC 320

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Venables v. Gould & Anor [2001] QDC 320

PARTIES:

SUZANNE MAREE VENABLES (Plaintiff)
v.
DENIS SHANE GOULD (First defendant)
And
SUNCORP GENERAL INSURANCE LIMITED (Second defendant)

FILE NO/S:

D4432 of 1998

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

5 December 2001

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

30, 31 May 2001

JUDGE:

McGill DCJ

ORDER:

Judgment that the second defendant pay the plaintiff $178,838 plus costs

CATCHWORDS:

DAMAGES – Personal Injury – neck – 5%

Sellars v. Adelaide Petroleum NL (1994) 179 CLR 332 – applied

COUNSEL:

C. Newton for the plaintiff
M.J. Hogan for the defendants

SOLICITORS:

Carew McKimmie for the plaintiff
Tutt & Quinlan for the defendant

1. This is an action for damages for personal injuries arising out of a motor vehicle accident on 31 March 1997, when the plaintiff was injured.  Liability is not in issue, but there was a substantial dispute on quantum, particularly in relation to the effect of the plaintiff’s injuries on her ability to earn income. 

1. The plaintiff was born on 29 July 1968 (Exhibit 22).  She was therefore 28 years of age at the date of the accident.  She was driving her vehicle south along the Bruce Highway a little to the south of the junction of the highway with the Landsborough-Caloundra Highway, in heavy traffic: p.11.  The traffic came to a halt fairly abruptly, and the plaintiff was able to stop before striking the car in front, but was then struck by the first defendant’s vehicle from behind, with considerable force.  The plaintiff’s vehicle was knocked forward on to the median strip and was unable to be driven away: p.12. 

1. The plaintiff was able to get out after the accident and stand up, but she felt odd feelings in the spine and in her head, and some pain: p.38.   She was driven by friends back to Brisbane.  The following day she had pain and saw a general practitioner, and by the day after she had severe pain in the neck.  She spent most of the next few days lying down.  The pain was at the base of her skull and neck area, although after a few days it progressed to the top part of her back.  The plaintiff was initially treated with anti-inflammatory gel, and ice: Exhibit 22.  An x-ray of her spine revealed no abnormality: Exhibit 1. On 4 April 1997 a CT brain scan revealed no significant abnormality: Exhibit 2. About one week after the accident the plaintiff was referred by her general practitioner for physiotherapy.  On 27 November 1999, the plaintiff underwent an MRI examination of the cervical spine, which was considered normal: Exhibit 11.

Medical Evidence

1. The plaintiff has seen a number of specialists who provided reports.  The first seen was Dr. Pentis, orthopaedic surgeon, who first examined her on 11 August 1997, about four and a half months after the accident, for the purposes of a report: Exhibit 3.  At that time the plaintiff was taking Brufen for pain…