Yani Pappas v Victor Noble

YANI PAPPAS v VICTOR NOBLE
[2007] ACTSC 26 (23 April 2007)

DAMAGES – personal injury – motor vehicle collision – injuries to neck – pre-existing asymptomatic degeneration in the thoracic and lumbar spine – assessment of damages for loss of earning capacity

EVIDENCE – admissibility – assessment of damages for personal injury – Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 – observations on single expert provisions

No.  SC 148 of 2004

Judge:              Master Harper
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date:               23 April 2007

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE       )
  )          No.  SC 148 of 2004
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )

BETWEEN:YANI PAPPAS

Plaintiff

AND:VICTOR NOBLE

Defendant

ORDER

Judge:  Master Harper
Date:  23 April 2007
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

Judgment be entered for the plaintiff in the sum of $494,000.00

1. The plaintiff in this action claims damages for personal injury arising out of a motor vehicle collision on 27 February 2004. Liability is not in issue.

The lay evidence

1. The plaintiff was born on 26 March 1972 and is 35 years of age. He was almost 32 at the date of the accident. He and his wife have three young children. They live on an eight-acre (3.2 hectare) block at Royalla, a semi-rural residential area about twenty kilometres south of Canberra.

1. The plaintiff went to high school in Canberra, leaving after year ten. He did well at school at physical activities but poorly academically. His numerical skills were quite good, but his reading, writing and spelling were poor. He undertook an apprenticeship as a ceramic tiler, which he completed successfully. The apprenticeship was entirely practical and did not include any technical or college training. He became a qualified tradesman at 19, and worked with various builders as a self-employed subcontractor.

1. The plaintiff enjoyed and was good at sport. He played grade cricket as an all-rounder with Tuggeranong Valley Cricket Club. He also played golf, tennis, touch football and indoor cricket.

1. He and his wife bought their block of land at Royalla in about 2000. They designed a house and the plaintiff obtained an owner-builder’s licence. His intention was to build the house himself, with unpaid help from friends who were tradesmen in other building trades. The arrangement was that he would help in return by undertaking the tiling when they built their own houses.

1. By about 2002, the frame of the house was in place, and water, electricity and sewerage were connected. The plaintiff put a caravan on the block and moved in, partly to save rent, but also to guard against trespassing and theft.

1. The plaintiff’s evidence was that during the years leading up to the accident he had as much tiling work as he could cope with. The pressure of work varied; where a job needed to be completed quickly he might work seven days a week. At other times he appreciated a break between jobs which gave him time to work on his own house. At the time of the accident he had a significant amount…