Winters v Bishop - [2014] QSC 312

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Winters v Bishop & Anor [2014] QSC 312

PARTIES:

ZOE WINTERS
(plaintiff)
v
THOMAS PAUL BISHOP
(first defendant)
and
AAI LIMITED (ABN 48 005 297 807) trading as SUNCORP METWAY INSURANCE LIMITED
(second defendant)

FILE NO/S:

1365/12

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

2 December 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

4, 5, 6, 7, 8 August 2014
Further written submissions

JUDGE:

Philippides J

ORDER:

Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $1,335,870.26

CATCHWORDS:

DAMAGES – MEASURE AND REMOTENESS – GENERAL – where plaintiff suffered head injury and other injury caused by accident – where damages assessed pursuant to Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) – where plaintiff resigned from employment – where assessment of damages in issue, including for general damages, damages for diminution of earning capacity and damages for care in issue

Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) s 11, s 59, s 60(3), s 61
Civil Liability Regulation 2003 (Qld)

Allwood v Wilson [2011] QSC 180
Blaxter v Commonwealth [2008] NSWCA 87
CSR Ltd v Eddy (2005) 226 CLR 1
Doughty v Cassidy [2004] QSC 366
Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission (1995) 182 CLR
Norris v Blake [No 2] (1997) 41 NSWLR 49

COUNSEL:

GR Mullins with J Harper for the plaintiff
RJ Lynch for the defendants

SOLICITORS:

Maurice Blackburn for the plaintiff
Jensen McConaghy for the defendants

BACKGROUND

The plaintiff was born on 14 August 1980 and is now 34 years of age. She claims damages against the first and second defendants for personal injuries arising out of a motor vehicle accident on 31 October 2007. The plaintiff was struck and knocked to the ground by a motor vehicle, while she was walking across a pedestrian crossing at the Brisbane Airport where she worked. The first defendant was the driver of the vehicle. The second defendant is the third party insurer of the vehicle.

Liability is admitted, leaving quantum as the sole area of dispute. While the nature of the head and elbow injuries sustained by the plaintiff was not in issue, there was dispute as to the extent of the plaintiff’s psychiatric injury; whether the plaintiff suffered a personality change due to her injuries. Also in dispute were matters going to the quantification of damages, in particular, whether the plaintiff’s resignation from the Brisbane Airport Corporation (BAC) was causally connected to her injuries and how general damages and economic loss should be quantified.

EVIDENCE
The plaintiff’s employment history prior to the accident

The plaintiff was born in Cooma, New South Wales. She performed very well at school and was in the top 5%. She completed a Bachelor of Town Planning from the University of New South Wales in 2003. As part of her town planning course, she did work experience with the South Sydney Council in the development assessment department and the strategic planning department. She continued to work in the latter department after the work experience period was completed. During her thesis…

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 Winters v Bishop

Details

AGLC: Winters v Bishop [2014] QSC 312
Case: [2014] QSC 312
Decision Date: 2 December 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Winters v Bishop, the plaintiff sought damages for injuries sustained in an accident that caused a head injury and other physical harm. The dispute was heard in the District Court of Queensland, where the plaintiff, Winters, argued for compensation based on the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld). The defendant, Bishop, contested the amount and scope of the damages claimed, particularly regarding general damages for pain and suffering, diminution of earning capacity, and care costs. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate level of damages for Winters, considering his resignation from employment post-injury and the overall impact of the accident on his life.

The central legal issues revolved around the measurement and remoteness of damages in light of Winters' resignation from his employment. The court had to consider whether the resignation was a direct consequence of the injuries sustained in the accident and how this impacted the assessment of damages. Specifically, the court needed to evaluate the general damages for pain and suffering, the diminution of earning capacity, and the costs associated with care and support required by Winters post-injury. The court also had to address the legislative framework provided by the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) in assessing these damages.

The court found that Winters' resignation was a direct consequence of the injuries sustained in the accident, which affected his earning capacity and necessitated additional care. In assessing the damages, the court considered the extent of the head injury and other injuries, the impact on Winters' ability to work, and the need for ongoing care. The court awarded Winters a total of $1,335,870.26 in damages, which included compensation for general damages, diminution of earning capacity, and care costs. The judgment underscored the importance of the legislative framework in guiding the assessment of damages, ensuring that Winters received appropriate compensation for the injuries and their consequences.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $1,335,870.26

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:	Winters v Bishop & Anor [2014] QSC 312
PARTIES:	ZOE WINTERS (plaintiff) v THOMAS PAUL BISHOP (first defendant) and AAI LIMITED (ABN 48 005 297 807) trading as SUNCORP METWAY INSURANCE LIMITED (second defendant)
FILE NO/S:	1365/12
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	2 December 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	4, 5, 6, 7, 8 August 2014 Further written submissions
JUDGE:	Philippides J
ORDER:	Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $1,335,870.26
CATCHWORDS:	DAMAGES – MEASURE AND REMOTENESS – GENERAL – where plaintiff suffered head injury and other injury caused by accident – where damages assessed pursuant to Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) – where plaintiff resigned from employment – where assessment of damages in issue, including for general damages, damages for diminution of earning capacity and damages for care in issue Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) s 11, s 59, s 60(3), s 61 Civil Liability Regulation 2003 (Qld) Allwood v Wilson [2011] QSC 180 Blaxter v Commonwealth [2008] NSWCA 87 CSR Ltd v Eddy (2005) 226 CLR 1 Doughty v Cassidy [2004] QSC 366 Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission (1995) 182 CLR Norris v Blake [No 2] (1997) 41 NSWLR 49
COUNSEL:	GR Mullins with J Harper for the plaintiff RJ Lynch for the defendants
SOLICITORS:	Maurice Blackburn for the plaintiff Jensen McConaghy for the defendants