Weightman v Noosa Shire Council

Link copied
Case Copied 22 min read

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Weightman v Noosa Shire Council & Ors [2001] QSC 300
PARTIES: ROGER GEORGE WEIGHTMAN
(plaintiff)
v
NOOSA COUNCIL
(defendant)
GRETA GWENYTH RULE as executrix of the estate of the late JAMES ALFRED RULE (deceased)
(third party)
MUNICIPAL MUTUAL INSURANCE LIMITED
(fourth party)
FILE NO/S: S 1348 OF 1994
DIVISION: Trial Division
PROCEEDING: Civil Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:

Brisbane

DELIVERED ON: 17 August 2001
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 23-24 April 2001
JUDGE: Philippides J
ORDER: Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant for $571,843
CATCHWORDS:

DAMAGES -  personal injury - plaintiff run over by grader -  quantum – post traumatic stress disorder - loss of earnings -  pain and suffering

Grincelis v House (2001) 201 CLR 321
Larkin McDonald v Mahoney, [1992] QCA 163 unreported, CA 24.6.92
Mahoney v GEC [1994] 1 Qd R 397
Mott v FAI [2000] Qd R 34
Serisier Investments Pty Ltd v English [1989] 1 Qd R
Van Gervan v Fenton (1992) 175 CLR 327

COUNSEL: S Williams QC with him A J Williams for plaintiff
J Douglas QC with him R Morton for defendant
T North SC with him R Dickson for third party
SOLICITORS: R P McCormick & Co for plaintiff
Heiser Bayly Mortenson for defendant
Sparke Helmore for third party
  1. PHILIPPIDES J:  This is an action brought by the plaintiff, in respect of an accident which occurred on 5 December 1991, whilst the plaintiff was carrying out work on behalf of the defendant in his capacity as a labourer, at a work site known as Eenie Creek Road, adjacent to the Noosa/Eumundi Road. The plaintiff was born on 19 December 1945 and at the time of the accident was 45 years of age. He is now aged 55.

  1. The only matter outstanding for determination is one of the quantum of damages which the plaintiff is entitled to recover, all matters of liability, including the liability of the third and fourth parties, having been resolved.

  1. The plaintiff was assisting in the construction of a concrete dish drain into a stormwater pit.  He was run over by a large grader being driven at the site by another employee of the defendant, one James Alfred Rule.  The grader ran over his left ankle, thigh and lower abdomen, the plaintiff being pinned on his back for some time.  As a result of the accident, the plaintiff claims to have sustained orthopaedic and psychiatric injuries as follows:

(a)        crush type injury to his left groin;

(b)        crush type injury to his left thigh;

(c)        crush type injury to the lower limb involving compound fractures to his talus and a fracture dislocation of his fourth and fifth metacarpals at the level of the metacarpal cuneiform joint;

(d)        back injury;

(e)        left knee injury;

(f)        severe bruising and lacerations;

(g)        severe scarring;

(h)        depression and post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD); and

(i)         shock.

Medical Evidence

Orthopaedic Evidence

  1. The plaintiff was treated at the Nambour General Hospital on 5 December 1991 for a fracture of…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Weightman v Noosa Shire Council 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
[2001] QSC 300
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Weightman, sued Noosa Shire Council in the District Court of Queensland over a personal injury incident where he was run over by a grader. The court was tasked with determining the quantum of damages owed to the plaintiff, which included compensation for post traumatic stress disorder, loss of earnings, and pain and suffering. The defendant argued that the plaintiff's claims for damages were excessive and not supported by evidence. The plaintiff, on the other hand, asserted that his injuries were severe and his suffering was significant, warranting a substantial award.

The court examined the extent of the plaintiff's injuries and their impact on his life. It considered medical evidence regarding the plaintiff's post traumatic stress disorder, the extent of his physical injuries, and the effect these had on his ability to work and enjoy life. The court also evaluated the evidence regarding the plaintiff's loss of earnings and his capacity for future employment. Additionally, the court took into account the pain and suffering the plaintiff endured, both physically and mentally, as a result of the incident.

After thorough consideration of all evidence and arguments presented, the court found that the plaintiff's claims were substantiated and awarded him $571,843 in damages. The court recognised the significant impact the incident had on the plaintiff's life, including his ongoing mental health issues and reduced earning capacity. The court determined that this amount appropriately compensated the plaintiff for his losses and suffering. The defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff the full amount of the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant for $571,843

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.