Young v Bayliss - [2005] QSC 152

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Young v. Bayliss & Anor [2005] QSC 152

PARTIES:

RHONDA GAYE YOUNG
(plaintiff)
v.
KYM BAYLISS
(first defendant)
and
SUNCORP METWAY INSURANCE LIMITED
(ACN 075 695 966)
(second defendant)

FILE NO:

BS 10783 of 2003

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Claim

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

3 June 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

28 February and 1, 2 and 3 March 2005

JUDGE:

Helman J.

CATCHWORDS:

DAMAGES - PERSONAL INJURIES – QUANTUM OF DAMAGES - where plaintiff’s stationary vehicle struck from behind – where plaintiff had had previous motor vehicle accident in the United States – whether the court could be satisfied the second collision caused more than minor aggravation of previous injuries

COUNSEL:

Mr W.D.P. Campbell for the plaintiff
Messrs P.V. Ambrose S.C. and M.P. Kent for the defendants

SOLICITORS:

K.M. Splatt & Associates for the plaintiff
Jensen McConaghy for the defendants

The plaintiff’s claim in this proceeding arises from a motor vehicle collision that took place at or about 2.00 p.m. on 20 February 2001 at Zillmere, Brisbane. The plaintiff was the driver of a Jeep car that was stationary at traffic lights when a Ford car owned and driven by the first defendant and insured by the second defendant collided with another vehicle which was stationary behind the Jeep. The collision pushed the vehicle behind the Jeep into the rear of the Jeep causing injury to the plaintiff. The defendants admit that the collision was caused by the negligence of the first defendant, leaving only the quantum of the damages to which the plaintiff is entitled as the only question for my determination. The plaintiff, who receives a single parent’s pension and is at present not employed, claims she suffered the following as results of the collision: a whiplash injury to the neck and mid-back, fractures to vertebrae, eczema, and a psychological injury. At the trial it was conceded on behalf of the defendants that the plaintiff suffered some minor injury in the collision, but on her behalf her injuries were asserted to be severely and permanently disabling.

The plaintiff was born on 8 January 1972 in French Polynesia. She attended the Sandgate High School until she had completed Year 10. She later made an attempt to further her studies but did not succeed in completing them. She left her parents’ home at the age of fifteen or sixteen years and gained employment in a fruit shop and in other positions in the retail trade. In August 1995 she began working at a duty-free shop at Brisbane airport. In 1996 she went to the United States for a holiday and there met a submariner in the United States Navy whom she married on 24 July of that year. She became a permanent resident of the United States, and was granted legal permanent-residence (‘green card’) status on 30 August 1996. She lived in San Diego. She then endeavoured to pursue a career as a model, undertaking courses offered at a modelling…

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 Young v Bayliss

Details

AGLC: Young v Bayliss [2005] QSC 152
Case: [2005] QSC 152
Decision Date: 3 June 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Young v Bayliss was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the plaintiff sought damages for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The plaintiff, who had previously suffered injuries in a car accident in the United States, was struck from behind while stationary in his vehicle by the defendant's car. The plaintiff argued that the second collision had caused more than minor aggravation of his previous injuries. The defendant disputed the extent of the injuries and the causal link between the collision and the plaintiff's injuries.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff could establish that the second collision had caused more than minor aggravation of his pre-existing injuries. The court needed to consider the evidence provided by the plaintiff regarding the nature and extent of his injuries, the expert medical evidence, and the applicable legal principles concerning the assessment of damages for personal injuries. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the second collision was a significant contributing factor to the plaintiff's injuries, as the defendant contended that the plaintiff's injuries were largely a result of the previous accident in the United States.

The court held that the plaintiff had not successfully established that the second collision caused more than minor aggravation of his pre-existing injuries. The court found that the evidence provided by the plaintiff and the medical experts did not convincingly demonstrate a causal link between the second collision and a significant aggravation of the plaintiff's injuries. The court emphasised the need for clear and compelling evidence to support a claim of more than minor aggravation, particularly in cases where the plaintiff has a history of previous injuries. Ultimately, the court was not satisfied that the plaintiff had met the requisite burden of proof to establish that the second collision caused more than minor aggravation of his pre-existing injuries.

The Supreme Court of Victoria dismissed the plaintiff's claim for damages, finding that the plaintiff had failed to establish that the second collision caused more than minor aggravation of his previous injuries. The court awarded costs to the defendant in accordance with the terms of the applicable legislation.

Orders