Wainwright v Lee - [2013] ACTSC 191

PETA WAINWRIGHT v WEI-YANG LEE
[2013] ACTSC 191 (12 September 2013)

DAMAGES – personal injury – motor vehicle collision – injuries to cervical spine – pre-existing degenerative changes in cervical spine – fractured ribs – soft-tissue injuries to low back and torso – loss of opportunity for promotion as public servant – no issue of principle.

No. SC 1056 of 2009

Judge: Master Harper
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 12 September 2013

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No. SC 1056 of 2009
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY           )

BETWEEN: PETA WAINWRIGHT
Plaintiff

AND: WEI-YANG LEE
Defendant

ORDER

Judge:  Master Harper
Date:  12 September 2013
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

judgment be entered for the plaintiff in the sum of $186,000.00.

The plaintiff claims damages for personal injuries which she sustained in a motor accident on Sunday 14 October 2007. She was a front-seat passenger in the family car, driven by her husband, which was involved in an intersection collision. Liability is admitted, and the action comes before the Court for the assessment of damages.

The plaintiff

The plaintiff was born in 1958. She was 49 at the time of the accident and is now 55. She is a senior public servant (Executive Level 2) in the Commonwealth Public Service. She is married with a daughter aged 15.

The collision

The accident happened at about 3:15 pm, at the intersection of David Street and Froggatt Street, Turner. The plaintiff and her family had just returned from holiday and were driving from their home at Turner to collect the family dog from kennels. The plaintiff’s husband was driving and her daughter was in the back seat. They were proceeding north-east in David Street. The defendant was driving north in Froggatt Street, and drove into the intersection contrary to a give-way sign, colliding with another car travelling south-west in David Street prior to the collision with the vehicle in which the plaintiff was travelling.

The defendant does not seem to have slowed down for the intersection, and the impact occurred at some speed on her part. The airbags in the plaintiff’s vehicle were deployed, in itself, I am informed, quite a traumatic experience. On explosion the airbags released a fine smoke-like dust. In addition the engine compartment of the plaintiff’s car caught fire. The plaintiff screamed at her daughter and her husband in panic to get out of the car. She and her daughter did so, and ran from it. She realised that her husband had been unable to open his door because of collision damage. He managed to kick the door open and escape, and the fire was put out by the fire brigade, who attended as did ambulance and police.

After the formalities, the plaintiff and her family walked home. All suffered some injuries, the claims by the husband and daughter being settled without the need for a trial. Their car was damaged beyond repair and in due course they bought a replacement vehicle.

The lay evidence

Oral…

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 Wainwright v Lee

Details

AGLC: Wainwright v Lee [2013] ACTSC 191
Case: [2013] ACTSC 191
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, the plaintiff, PETA WAINWRIGHT, successfully sued the defendant, WEI-YANG LEE, for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 14 October 2007. The plaintiff was a passenger in a car driven by her husband, which collided with another vehicle driven by the defendant. The plaintiff suffered personal injuries including fractures to her ribs, soft-tissue injuries to her low back and torso, and injuries to her cervical spine which aggravated pre-existing degenerative changes. The plaintiff also experienced psychological effects as a result of the accident. The court had to determine the appropriate amount of damages to be awarded to the plaintiff, taking into account the extent of her injuries, the impact on her life, and the defendant's liability for the accident. After considering the evidence and submissions from both parties, the court awarded the plaintiff $186,000.00 in damages, including general damages for pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and loss of earning capacity, as well as out-of-pocket expenses and loss of superannuation benefits.

The court found that the accident had caused significant aggravation of the plaintiff's pre-existing degenerative changes in her cervical spine, resulting in continuing neck pain, referred pain in both arms, and other symptoms. The court rejected the defendant's argument that the plaintiff's continuing symptoms were due to her pre-existing degenerative condition rather than the car accident. The court also found that the plaintiff's anxiety about motor vehicle travel, which had a marked impact on her life, was a necessary consequence of the accident. The court awarded the plaintiff $85,000.00 for general damages, apportioning $42,500.00 for the past and $42,500.00 for the future. The court further awarded the plaintiff $20,000.00 for past loss of earning capacity, $30,000.00 for future loss of earning capacity, $1,800.00 for past lost superannuation benefits, and $2,700.00 for future lost superannuation benefits. The court also allowed $10,000.00 for the cost of tasks the plaintiff was unable to perform around the house due to her injuries. The total award of $186,000.00 was considered to be an appropriate reflection of the impact of the defendant's negligence on the plaintiff in monetary terms.

Orders