DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Williams-Cook v Schloss & Anor [2018] QDC 175
PARTIES:
DANIELLE MAREA WILLIAMS-COOK
(plaintiff)v
ALLAN NEIL SCHLOSS
(first defendant)RACQ INSURANCE LIMITED ABN 50009704152
(second defendant)FILE NO/S:
3701/16
DIVISION:
Civil
PROCEEDING:
Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:
Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
29 August 2018
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
16-18 April 2018; final written submissions received 22 May 2018
JUDGE:
Jarro DCJ
ORDER:
Judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $35,708.25.
CATCHWORDS:
DAMAGES – Personal injuries – Quantum – Where the plaintiff was injured in a car accident – Liability admitted – dispute as the consequence of the injuries caused by the car accident – Whether the plaintiff has suffered or will suffer loss of earnings as a result of the accident caused injuries
Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld), s 55
Civil Liability Regulation 2014 (Qld), sch 4
Alliance Australia Insurance Ltd v McCarthy [2012] QCA 312
Onassis and Calogeropoulos v Vergottis [1968] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 403
COUNSEL:
A Canceri for the plaintiff
GC O’Driscoll for the second defendant
SOLICITORS:
CMC Lawyers for the plaintiff
Quinlan Miller and Treston for the second defendant
Ms Danielle Williams-Cook was injured as she drove her motor vehicle through the intersection of Fraser and Mackie Streets, Chinchilla on 6 August 2014, when a vehicle, being driven by the first defendant and covered by a policy of insurance with the second defendant, failed to give way and collided into the front passenger side of Ms Williams-Cook’s car.
Ms Williams-Cook was 23 at the time of the accident. She was 10 weeks pregnant. In fact she consulted a General Practitioner at the Miles Medical Centre seven hours before the accident to confirm her pregnancy. She had previously experienced two miscarriages in the year prior to the accident.
Ms Williams-Cook now seeks to recover damages for injuries she says she suffered in the accident. Whilst the second defendant has admitted liability, the issue of quantum remains in dispute.
Ms Williams-Cook claims to have suffered injuries to her right shoulder and lumbar spine, namely:
(a) mild subacromial impingement of the right shoulder;
(b) soft tissue injury to the right shoulder;
(c) soft tissue injury to the lumbar spine; and
(d) mild spondylosis of the lumbar spine.
The second defendant submits that the asserted injuries are not true because:
(a) Ms Williams-Cook was examined by Dr Christopher Bell, Orthopaedic Surgeon, for the purposes of her claim for damages on 26 January 2016. Ms Williams-Cook told him that she did not have lower back pain initially following the accident but said that this pain developed in subsequent months as her pregnancy progressed.
(b) Ms Williams-Cook was treated at the Chinchilla Hospital on the day of the accident. She was concerned that her pregnancy had been affected, and this issue was investigated. The only complaint of pain she made at that time was of muscular pains around the seat-belt area on…
Continue reading Williams-Cook v Schloss
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Williams-Cook v Schloss [2018] QDC 175
- Case
- [2018] QDC 175
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to assess the evidence presented regarding the plaintiff's medical history, the impact of the accident on their ability to work, and the projected future loss of earnings. The plaintiff presented medical evidence and expert testimony to substantiate their claim for lost earnings, while the defendant challenged the extent and causation of these losses. The court had to weigh the credibility and reliability of the evidence and make a determination based on the balance of probabilities.
In delivering judgment, the court found that the plaintiff had indeed suffered a loss of earnings as a result of the injuries caused by the accident. The court accepted the plaintiff's evidence and expert testimony, which demonstrated a clear causal link between the accident and the loss of income. The court awarded the plaintiff damages in the amount of $35,708.25, reflecting the proven loss of earnings up to the date of judgment. The court's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the evidence and a careful consideration of the legal principles applicable to personal injury claims.
Orders
Orders of the court
Judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $35,708.25.
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.