Wattam v Jorgensen

[2012] ACTSC 111

SARAH LORRAINE WATTAM v KRISTY JORGENSEN
 [2012] ACTSC 111 (20 July 2012)

PERSONAL INJURY – motor vehicle accident – liability admitted – question of quantum of damages

No. SC 358 of 2009

Judge:             Burns J            
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date:              20 July 2012   

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No. SC 358 of 2009
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY           )          

BETWEEN:SARAH LORRAINE WATTAM

Plaintiff        

AND:  KRISTY JORGENSEN

Defendant

ORDER

Judge:  Burns J
Date:  20 July 2012
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. Judgement be entered for the plaintiff in the sum of $275,837.07.

1. The plaintiff, Sarah Lorraine Wattam, was the driver of a motor vehicle which was stationary at the intersection of Mouat Street and Brigalow Street in Lyneham in the Australian Capital Territory at about 2:55 pm on 28 May 2008.  At that time the defendant was the driver of another vehicle, which collided with the rear of the vehicle driven by the plaintiff.  In these proceedings the plaintiff claims damages for personal injury arising out of the collision.  The defendant has admitted breach of its duty to the plaintiff, and as such has accepted liability for the collision, but denies that the plaintiff has suffered injuries as she alleges.

1. The plaintiff is 30 years of age and has two children and, as I understand it, is expecting a third child in August this year.  The statement of particulars ultimately relied upon by the plaintiff dated 29 February 2012 alleges that the plaintiff suffered the following injuries and disabilities:

(a)       Whiplash injury to cervical spine;

(b)       Pain and restriction of movement in right and left rotation, flexion and extension of neck and in upper back;

(c)       Pain in the posterior aspect of the neck and between the scapula;

(d)      Pain and restriction of movement in upper back and upper limbs;

(e)       Recurring headaches;

(f)       Shock, pain and suffering;

(g)       Difficulty sleeping;

(h)       Restricted ability to carry out pre-injury employment as a logistics warehouse manager, particularly involving prolonged standing, sitting, keyboard work, bending, lifting and pushing of heavy equipment, including plasma televisions;

(i)        Restricted ability to engage in pre-injury recreations such as driving, netball, running, caring for and lifting her two children;

(j)        Restricted ability to perform household domestic duties including cleaning, cooking, shopping, washing, gardening and ironing due to pain in neck and upper back;

(k)       Secondary anxiety and depression;

(l)        Requirement for ongoing physiotherapy and massage to neck and upper limbs and to take pain relieving and anti-depressant medication.

1. At the date of the collision the plaintiff was employed by an organisation called Service Point Australia (Service Point) as a Logistics and Warehouse Manager.  She commenced her employment with Service Point in December 2007 on a three month trial, with a salary of $60,000.00 per annum exclusive of superannuation.  At the end of her three month trial, the plaintiff was offered, and took up, an opportunity in the Logistics Department of Service Point.  She was employed as the Procurement Officer and a National Workforce Manager.  She…