Willett v State of Victoria

Willett brought an action against the State of Victoria, alleging that she suffered psychiatric illness in the course of her employment. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, and the appeal was brought to the Court of Appeal. The primary legal issues in this case were whether the damages assessed by the jury were manifestly inadequate and whether the jury's finding of contributory negligence was open. The court was required to determine if the jury's award of damages was reasonably open on the view of the evidence most favourable to the respondent and whether the tortfeasor must take the victim as it finds her.

The court examined the evidence presented and found that there was no evidence of behaviour which might constitute contributory negligence and which could be said to be a cause of the appellant’s injury. The court noted that the tortfeasor must take the victim as it finds her and referred to the case of State of Victoria v McIver. The court concluded that the jury's award of damages was not reasonably open on the view of the evidence most favourable to the respondent and that the award was manifestly inadequate. The court also found that the jury's finding of contributory negligence was not open, as there was no evidence to support such a finding.

The court further examined the power of an appellate court to reassess damages and referred to various cases, including Lai Wee Lian v Singapore Bus Service (1978) Ltd, Murphy v Mark, Electrolux Pty Ltd v Siniakis, and Amaca Pty Ltd v King. The court found that the appeal was allowed and that the damages should be reassessed. The court noted that the award of damages was manifestly inadequate and that the appellant was entitled to a higher amount of damages.

The court ordered that the matter be remitted to the trial judge to reassess the damages and make a new award. The court noted that the trial judge should take into account the evidence presented and the findings of the jury, as well as the principles set out in the cases referred to above. The court also noted that the appellant was entitled to interest on the new award of damages from the date of the original judgment.