Williams v Partridge - [2009] QSC 278

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Williams v Partridge & Anor [2009] QSC 278

PARTIES:

MAUREEN KAY WILLIAMS

Plaintiff

v

CASSIE MAREE PARTRIDGE

First Defendant

And

ALLIANZ AUSTRALIA INSURANCE LIMITED

Second Defendant

FILE NO/S:

S1 of 2009

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Hearing

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court Bundaberg

DELIVERED ON:

8 September 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Rockhampton

HEARING DATE:

13,14 August 2009

JUDGE:

McMeekin J

ORDER:

Judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant in the sum of $611,196.36.

CATCHWORDS:

DAMAGES – MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT - MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – where the plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident – where liability is admitted – where damages are assessed under the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) – where no exercise of earning capacity over 18 years - whether past or future economic loss – where the plaintiff’s capacity to perform work is adversely affected.

DAMAGES – MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT - MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – where appropriate home modifications discussed - whether adequate proof of loss.

DAMAGES – MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT - MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – Damages for gratuitous services - where services necessary - whether carer’s benefit an offsetting benefit

Civil Liability Act 2003, s 55, s 59, s 62

Civil Liability Regulation 2003, ss 3,4 schedule 3, regulations 11, 12

Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 s 51(4), 51(9)

Golden Eagle International Trading Pty Ltd and Others v Zhang (2007) 229 CLR 498

Hughes v Grogan [2007] QSC 046

Malec v JC Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638

Mallett v McMonagle [1970] AC 166

Munzer v Johnston & Anor [2008] QSC 162

Van Gervan v Fenton (1992) 176 CLR 327

Scarf v State of Queensland [1998] QSC 233

COUNSEL:

S C Williams QC with A J Williams for the plaintiff

G Crow for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Payne Butler Lang for the plaintiff

Sciaccas Lawyers for the defendant

[1] The plaintiff, Maureen Kay Williams, claims damages for personal injuries suffered in a motor vehicle accident on 26 September 2004. Liability is admitted. It is necessary to assess the quantum of damages.

[2] Ms Williams was born on 19 April 1961 and so is presently aged 48 years. She was aged 43 years when injured.

[3] Ms Williams suffered multiple and severe injuries. Those injuries included:

(a) a compound fracture of the tibia and fibula of the left leg;

(b) a closed fracture of the tibia and fibula of the right leg;

(c) a ruptured spleen requiring laparotomy and splenectomy;

(d) left and right haemopneumothoraces;

(e) fractured ribs;

(f) mesenteric tears requiring repair during laparotomy;

(g) a probable cerebrospinal fluid leak.

[4] Ms Williams’ recovery was complicated by the onset of severe lung disease, probably as a result of aspiration pneumonia, as well as a deep venous thrombosis in her left arm and the development of osteomyelitis due to infection from the staphylococcus aureus organism.

[5]…

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 Williams v Partridge

Details

AGLC: Williams v Partridge [2009] QSC 278
Case: [2009] QSC 278
Decision Date: 8 September 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Williams v Partridge, the plaintiff, Williams, sought compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The defendant, Partridge, admitted liability, and the matter proceeded to a damages assessment. The Queensland District Court was tasked with determining the appropriate amount of damages under the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld). The court needed to decide on the measure of damages, specifically addressing past and future economic losses, given that the plaintiff had no earnings over 18 years, as well as non-economic losses such as pain and suffering. Additionally, the court had to consider whether home modifications were necessary and if there was adequate proof of loss, and whether the carer's benefit could be considered an offsetting benefit.

The court examined the plaintiff's capacity to perform work, which was adversely affected by the injuries, and assessed whether the injuries warranted past or future economic loss compensation. The plaintiff argued for home modifications to accommodate the injuries, and the court had to determine if these modifications were necessary and if there was sufficient proof of the associated loss. The court also considered whether the carer's benefit could be an offsetting benefit, meaning it could reduce the overall damages awarded.

In its judgment, the court awarded damages to the plaintiff, determining that the injuries warranted compensation for both economic and non-economic losses. The court found that the plaintiff's earning capacity was adversely affected and awarded damages accordingly. The court also determined that the home modifications were necessary and awarded compensation for the associated loss. The court held that the carer's benefit could not be considered an offsetting benefit, as it did not reduce the overall damages owed.

The court ordered judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $611,196.36, which included compensation for economic and non-economic losses, home modifications, and other related expenses. The defendant was held liable for the full amount of the damages awarded.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant in the sum of $611,196.36.

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.

CITATION:	Williams v Partridge & Anor [2009] QSC 278
PARTIES:	MAUREEN KAY WILLIAMS Plaintiff v CASSIE MAREE PARTRIDGE First Defendant And ALLIANZ AUSTRALIA INSURANCE LIMITED Second Defendant
FILE NO/S:	S1 of 2009
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Hearing
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court Bundaberg
DELIVERED ON:	8 September 2009
DELIVERED AT:	Rockhampton
HEARING DATE:	13,14 August 2009
JUDGE:	McMeekin J
ORDER:	Judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant in the sum of $611,196.36.
CATCHWORDS:	DAMAGES – MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT - MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – where the plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident – where liability is admitted – where damages are assessed under the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) – where no exercise of earning capacity over 18 years - whether past or future economic loss – where the plaintiff’s capacity to perform work is adversely affected. DAMAGES – MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT - MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – where appropriate home modifications discussed - whether adequate proof of loss. DAMAGES – MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT - MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – Damages for gratuitous services - where services necessary - whether carer’s benefit an offsetting benefit Civil Liability Act 2003, s 55, s 59, s 62 Civil Liability Regulation 2003, ss 3,4 schedule 3, regulations 11, 12 Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 s 51(4), 51(9) Golden Eagle International Trading Pty Ltd and Others v Zhang (2007) 229 CLR 498 Hughes v Grogan [2007] QSC 046 Malec v JC Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638 Mallett v McMonagle [1970] AC 166 Munzer v Johnston & Anor [2008] QSC 162 Van Gervan v Fenton (1992) 176 CLR 327 Scarf v State of Queensland [1998] QSC 233
COUNSEL:	S C Williams QC with A J Williams for the plaintiff G Crow for the defendant
SOLICITORS:	Payne Butler Lang for the plaintiff Sciaccas Lawyers for the defendant