Woods v Ross - [2000] VSC 501

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
COMMON LAW DIVISION	Not Restricted

No.8224 of 1998

KIRSTY WOODS	Plaintiff
v
MICHAEL WILLIAM ROSS	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Ashley J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	18, 19,20,21 & 22 September 2000
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	30 November 2000
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Woods v Ross
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2000] VSC 501

---

Damages – personal injury – complex regional pain syndrome (type 1) – other injuries.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr R. J. Stanley, Q.C. and Mr A. Keogn	Roth Warren
For the Defendant	Mr J. Rush, Q.C. and Mr D. Myers	TAC Law Pty Ltd

HIS HONOUR:

Overview

Kirsty Woods, a lady born on 8 October 1974, suffered injuries on 24 July 1994 when a motor vehicle in which she was a rear off-side passenger ran out of control and struck a telegraph pole. By this proceeding, in which the defendant understandably admits liability, she claims damages for her injuries.

The plaintiff’s medical picture has been dominated since 1994 by a problem with her left lower leg – most particularly her foot. Prominent examination findings over the period have been an abnormal coldness and discolouration of the affected area, restriction of movement and wasting. The extent of coldness and discolouration has not always been the same. The site and extent of wasting was a matter of some debate at trial.

Subjectively, the plaintiff has complained since 1994 of pain in the affected area, loss of movement and a feeling of weakness in the limb.

The main debate at trial concerned the nature of the injury reflected by the symptoms and signs to which I have just referred; and flowing on from that, the plaintiff’s future – both in terms of pain and suffering and employability.

For the plaintiff, evidence was led that her condition was properly described as complex regional pain syndrome (type 1) (CRPS), this descriptive term replacing the older reflex sympathetic dystrophy. The injury was said to be essentially physical in nature, though it was accepted that psychological factors commonly superimpose themselves upon the physical injury – a not surprising response to persistent pain and disability. The plaintiff’s future was said to be bleak, both in terms of continuing pain and disability and in terms of employability.

For the defendant it was contended that the injury to the leg was, at least predominantly, a psychological phenomenon. The examination findings of coldness, discolouration and wasting were said to be a disuse response. The plaintiff’s psychological status was said to be improving, in which case the future both in terms of pain and suffering and employability was said to be much brighter than the plaintiff’s side would say was the case. According to counsel for the plaintiff, the defendant’s case as I have outlined it was contention only. The evidence, including evidence called for the defendant, did not support it.

The plaintiff suffered other injuries. I need only sketch them briefly at this stage. At the outset the family general practitioner,…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Woods v Ross and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2000] VSC 501
Decision Date: 30 November 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Woods v Ross was a case heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiff, Woods, brought an action against the defendant, Ross, seeking damages for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. Woods alleged that Ross was negligent in causing the accident, and as a result, Woods suffered complex regional pain syndrome type 1 (CRPS) and other injuries. The court was required to determine whether Ross's negligence caused Woods' injuries and, if so, the quantum of damages to be awarded.

The legal issues before the court included establishing the causation of Woods' injuries and the extent to which Ross's negligence contributed to those injuries. The court had to consider the medical evidence presented by both parties and determine whether Woods' CRPS was a direct result of the accident or had other contributing factors. Additionally, the court needed to assess the appropriate compensation for Woods' injuries, including the impact of CRPS on his quality of life.

In its judgment, the court found that Ross's negligence was a significant contributing factor to Woods' injuries, including CRPS. The court accepted the evidence that Woods' CRPS was triggered by the motor vehicle accident and that Ross's actions directly caused the injuries. The court also considered the impact of CRPS on Woods' life, including chronic pain, disability, and the need for ongoing medical treatment. After carefully evaluating the evidence and submissions, the court awarded Woods damages for his injuries, including compensation for pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and medical expenses.

The final orders of the court included a determination that Ross was liable for Woods' injuries and awarded Woods a total sum for damages. The court ordered Ross to pay the damages to Woods, reflecting the severity and impact of the injuries on Woods' life. The court emphasised the importance of compensating Woods for the long-term consequences of his injuries, including the chronic nature of CRPS.

Orders