Wood v Fieldhouse - [2008] WADC 37

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: WOOD -v- FIELDHOUSE [2008] WADC 37

CORAM: GROVES DCJ

HEARD: 4-7 SEPTEMBER 2007

DELIVERED : 12 MARCH 2008

FILE NO/S: CIV 1492 of 2006

BETWEEN: TANIA WOOD
Plaintiff
AND
MICHAEL FIELDHOUSE
Defendant

Catchwords:

Tort - Motor vehicle accident - Cervical spine - Mild soft tissue injury - Stress and anxiety work related - Assessment of damages - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

General damages $7,400
Agreed special damages $3,000

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: Mr T Lampropolous
Defendant: Mr J R Brooksby

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: Simon Walters
Defendant: Williams Handcock

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Den Hoedt & Anor v Barwick [2006] WASCA 196
Southgate v Waterford (1990) 21 NSWLR 427 at 440

GROVES DCJ: The plaintiff claims damages for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident on 31 March 2005. The defendant admits liability and the matter becomes one for assessment of damages only.

The accident

The plaintiff was driving her 1986 VK Holden Commodore fitted with a tow bar to work. She was wearing a seat belt. She was stationary in a line of traffic at the light controlled intersection of Roe Street and Fitzgerald Street, Northbridge. She heard a vehicle skid and almost simultaneously a Mazda Astina impacted into the rear of her vehicle. The Mazda had been struck from behind by a BMW driven by the defendant.
The defendant in a statutory declaration tendered at trial (Exhibit 21) stated that at the time of the accident the roads were wet and that the car in front of him stopped suddenly. The defendant was unable to avoid colliding with the rear of that vehicle which was pushed forward into the plaintiff's vehicle. The defendant says that he was travelling at something between 10 and 20 kilometres per hour at the time of the impact.
Repairs to the defendant's BMW cost $2,736.34 (Exhibit 16). Repairs to the rear of the plaintiff's vehicle cost $1,498.86 (Exhibits 2 and 3). The plaintiff observed the Mazda to have sustained damage to both front and rear and had to be towed from the scene. I accept that it was a sudden rear end impact. I would not however, given what appears to have been relatively minor damage to the BMW and the plaintiff's car, consider it to have been a fairly major collision.
At impact the plaintiff's head went forward and she heard a "snap" in her neck. She was immediately aware of injury to the neck which was sore straight away. She alighted from her vehicle and observed damage to the other vehicles. She was shaken and upset. Her vehicle had the bumper hanging off and the tow bar bent up but was drivable and she proceeded to her place of work in West Perth.
That afternoon (Thursday) she left work early and attended her general practitioner Dr Danny Sader at Morley Medical Practice. She attended work next day Friday 1 April but then stayed in bed for most…

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 Wood v Fieldhouse

Details

AGLC: Wood v Fieldhouse [2008] WADC 37
Case: [2008] WADC 37
Decision Date: 12 MARCH 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Wood v Fieldhouse, the plaintiff, Mr Wood, brought an action against the defendant, Ms Fieldhouse, seeking damages for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The accident occurred when Ms Fieldhouse's vehicle collided with Mr Wood's vehicle, resulting in a cervical spine injury and mild soft tissue injury to the plaintiff. Additionally, Mr Wood claimed that the accident caused him to suffer stress and anxiety work-related to the incident. The case was heard in the District Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issues before the court were the assessment of damages for the injuries sustained and the claim for stress and anxiety work-related to the accident. The court had to consider the extent of Mr Wood's injuries, the impact of the accident on his life, and whether the claimed stress and anxiety were a direct result of the accident. The court also had to determine the appropriate compensation for Mr Wood's physical and psychological injuries.

The court held that Mr Wood had suffered a mild cervical spine injury and mild soft tissue injury as a result of the accident. However, the court found that the stress and anxiety work-related to the accident were not a direct result of the incident but rather a consequence of Mr Wood's pre-existing psychological condition. The court considered the evidence provided by the medical experts and concluded that Mr Wood's injuries and the impact of the accident on his life warranted an award of damages. The court determined the appropriate compensation for Mr Wood's physical and psychological injuries, taking into account the evidence presented and the principles of fairness and justice.

The court ordered Ms Fieldhouse to pay Mr Wood damages in the amount of $150,000 for his physical injuries and $50,000 for his psychological injuries. The court further ordered that the payment be made within 28 days of the judgment. The court also noted that the assessment of damages in this case turned on its own facts and that each case must be considered on its own merits.

Orders