Freeleagus v Nominal Defendant
[2006] QDC 368
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- Appeal Determined (QCA)
- Freeleagus v Nominal Defendant[2006] QDC 368
- Add to List
Freeleagus v Nominal Defendant[2006] QDC 368
Freeleagus v Nominal Defendant[2006] QDC 368
DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: | Freeleagus v Nominal Defendant [2006] QDC 368 |
PARTIES: | DAMIEN MYLES FREELEAGUS v NOMINAL DEFENDANT |
FILE NO/S: | BD3393/03 |
DIVISION: | Civil |
PROCEEDING: | Trial |
ORIGINATING COURT: | District Court, Brisbane |
DELIVERED ON: | 11 October 2006 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARING DATE: | 29 – 31 August 2006 |
JUDGE: | Ryrie DCJ |
ORDER: | Judgment for the plaintiff against the nominal defendant for the sum of $50,709.00. The plaintiff’s costs to be paid by the nominal defendant in accordance with the applicable scale, to be assessed on a standard basis. |
CATCHWORDS: | DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – motor vehicle accident – whether collision was caused by the defendant – whether defendant created a dangerous situation in bringing her motor vehicle to a halt partly protruding into right-hand lane on highway – whether defendant is in breach of s 177 of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Road Rules) Regulations 1999 DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – whether the collision was caused by or contributed to by the plaintiff. Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Road Rules) Regulations 1999 s 177 |
COUNSEL: | Mr P Goodwin for the plaintiff Mr M O'Sullivan for the defendant |
SOLICITORS: | Ralph Bartels for the plaintiff Phillips Fox for the defendant |
Introduction
- [1]The plaintiff (Mr Freeleagus) has sued to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by him when, on 27th November 2000, at or about 2.45pm, the right front part of his motor vehicle struck the left rear part of a motor vehicle which was left parked partly in the right hand lane of a three southbound lane highway.
- [2]The driver of that vehicle (Ms Daniels) had left her vehicle in that position after she had experienced a flat tyre as she was travelling south in the right hand lane.
- [3]Ms Daniels had parked the vehicle parallel and as close as she could get it near the concrete barrier which separated the respective north and southbound carriageway, after she had experienced difficulty with the steering (as a result of the flat tyre).
- [4]She also told an investigating police officer that she couldn’t change lanes to get across to the left and stop as there was too much traffic at the time.
- [5]The Plaintiff was travelling south in the middle lane along the highway on his way to work. The rear of the defendant’s vehicle, with its hazard lights illuminated, faced the southbound traffic and about ½ metre of the width of that vehicle projected into the right hand lane.
- [6]The Plaintiff, who had been travelling in the middle lane at approximately 100 kph in moderate traffic, first saw the defendant’s vehicle only after he has moved into that lane in order to pass a car which had been travelling directly in front of him in the same lane.
- [7]It was only after the Plaintiff had moved into the right lane. that he realised that the defendant’s vehicle was in fact stationary and he then attempted to swerve to avoid hitting it.
- [8]He had not noticed that the hazard lights had been activated on the defendant’s vehicle nor did he attempt to slow down or brake to avoid collision.
- [9]The Plaintiff said he had only travelled in the right lane for a couple of seconds before he noticed the defendant’s vehicle ahead of him. He was about 200 to 300 metres away at that point.
- [10]After colliding with the rear of the defendant’s vehicle, the Plaintiff’s vehicle eventually came to a rest. The Plaintiff was subsequently cut from his vehicle and taken to hospital.
- [11]He subsequently received medical treatment.
The Issues
- Was the collision caused by the negligence of defendant? (particularised at para 8 of the Claim).
- Or was the collision caused, or contributed to, by the negligence of the plaintiff? ( particularised at para 5 of the Defence).
If so, to what degree?
- What damages, if any, will the Plaintiff be entitled to in respect of any personal injury and other loss suffered by him as a result of the collision?
Issue 1 - Liability
- [12]Liability was put in issue between the parties.
- [13]The Plaintiff submits that the evidence available clearly satisfies the standard of proof that the actions of the defendant were in fact negligent and that as a result of that negligence, the plaintiff has suffered injury and other loss as a consequence.
- [14]The Plaintiff says that the actions of the defendant were negligent insofar as:
- (i)the defendant had created a dangerous situation in bringing her motor vehicle to a halt partly protruding into the right-hand lane of the Pacific highway.
- (ii)by bringing her motor vehicle to a halt in such circumstances, she has breached s.177 of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Road Rules) Regulation 1999.
- (iii)a reasonably prudent driver in the circumstances, despite having a suffered a flat tyre, and despite having difficulty in steering her vehicle, would have slowed her vehicle in order for her to drive her vehicle to the far left hand side of the highway, thus obviating any risk of a collision.
- [15]The Defendant on the other hand says that it was the actions of the plaintiff which were negligent as a consequence, he caused the collision to occur, or contributed to the collision occurring.
- [16]The basis upon which the defendant says that the defendant driver was not negligent is set out at para 4 of the Amended Defence.
The evidence
- [17]The Plaintiff gave evidence and was cross-examined.
- [18]The defendant’s (driver) statement was tendered into evidence by consent pursuant to the provisions of the Evidence Act 1977.
- [19]That course was taken because the driver was unable to be located for the purpose of the trial.
- [20]The investigating officer was called and gave evidence.
- [21]Two further witnesses, Mr and Mrs Nathan were also called and gave evidence.
- [22]It is clear on the evidence available that the driver (hereinafter referred to as Ms Daniels) only left her vehicle after Mr Nathan (an off duty police officer) directed here to do so.
- [23]That direction was given because Mr Nathan has formed the view that Ms Daniels was in a dangerous situation herself because she was standing beside her vehicle and her vehicle was situated at that point about half a metre over into the right hand lane.
- [24]He immediately made contact with the police in order that a police unit could come out to take care of traffic control in order to prevent any accident happening.
- [25]The defendant denies that Ms Daniels’ vehicle created an obstruction to traffic on the freeway on the grounds that (i) the vehicle’s hazard lights were on (which both Mr and Mrs Nathan had seen some 900 and 400 to 500 metres away respectively when they were travelling in the left hand lane also travelling southbound that day) (ii) that only a small portion of Ms Daniels’ vehicle protruded into the far right lane and (iii) a number of other vehicles had passed Ms Daniels’ vehicle without incident before the plaintiff hit her.
- [26]The evidence of Mr Nathan however does not support these contentions.
- [27]It is clear on the evidence given by Mr Nathan that he still considered the situation to be dangerous notwithstanding that the vehicle did in fact have its hazard lights on, that both he and his wife had seen those lights approximately 900 and 400 to 500 metres away respectively and notwithstanding that he observed that several other cars had slowed down or had managed to move around Ms Daniels’ vehicle.
- [28]The defendant also submited that Ms Daniels was unable to drive to the left of the freeway towards the emergency stopping lane because of the lack of manoeuvrability of her vehicle by virtue of the flat tyre and the amount of traffic in the two left hand lanes of the highway, and therefore could not be said to have been negligent.
- [29]I cannot accept those contentions.
- [30]There was no evidence which supports a finding that Ms Daniels was not able to drive her car to the far left of the highway due to any lack of manoeuvrability of the vehicle by virtue of the flat tyre.
- [31]While the evidence available supports the view that her steering became very heavy to the right as a result of the flat tyre (which deflated through no fault of the driver), there is no evidence available to support the view that she was unable to drive her car to the far left of the highway as asserted.
- [32]Rather, Ms Daniels in her own statements (both written and orally to the investigating officer) says she choose not to drive across to the left side of the highway because of the amount of traffic also travelling southbound at that time.
- [33]However, there is no evidence to support the view that Ms Daniels was unable to drive her vehicle at any stage across to the left side of the highway at some point subsequently or even after she had parked it in the position she ultimately left it.
- [34]The defendant submits that in all the circumstances, Ms Daniels did everything reasonably possible in the circumstances and that her conduct should be judged by reference to ‘the agony of the moment’.
- [35]I cannot accept that submission.
- [36]There is no evidence to support the view that Ms Daniels was simply unable at any point in time unable to drive her vehicle across the left side of the highway due to any lack of manoeuvrability. Nor do I find that she couldn’t have got her car across to the left side of the highway at some stage either before or even after parking it due to any southbound traffic.
- [37]While I accept that at the time she suffered the flat tyre, the steering on the car felt very heavy to its right and that there may have been too much traffic for her to change lanes at that particular time, I cannot accept the submission that Ms Daniels did everything reasonably possible in the circumstances.
- [38]She made no attempt to get her car across to the left before she parked it or even after she parked it near the concrete barrier.
- [39]The defendant relied on case authority to support its submission that ‘the mere leaving of her vehicle on the highway’ is not sufficient to establish negligence.
- [40]However the facts of FAI General Insurance Co Ltd v Curtin (1997) ATR 81-441, are distinguishable from the facts here.
- [41]In that case there was a credible explanation given in respect of the positioning of the plaintiff’s vehicle (which had ended up on the incorrect side of the road in a diagonal position shortly before a collision occurred) by the plaintiff and other witnesses.
- [42]The plaintiff’s brakes in that case had pulled significantly to the right after her vehicle had suddenly began to lose power. She had attempted to keep the vehicle straight unsuccessfully. She also made some unsuccessful attempts to restart the engine after the vehicle stopped. As she and others were attempting to move her stationary vehicle from its position, the defendant approaching failed to see the car in time and collided with it.
- [43]That is not the situation here.
- [44]The defendant, when parking her vehicle in the position which she did, should have appreciated that parking her vehicle in the manner which she did was negligent. Although the hazard lights were illuminated on her vehicle, the defendant should have, in my view, appreciated that the parked vehicle would have, in those circumstances, constituted a danger to other road users and therefore should have parked her vehicle in the emergency lane which was situated on the left of the highway. (see Ex 11 and 12 which depict the emergency lane).
- [45]The defendant’s wrongful act in parking the car where she did created a clear situation of danger, the risk being that another road user in the plaintiff’s position would suffer a risk of injury which was reasonably foreseeable.
- [46]Accordingly, I find that the collision was caused by the negligence of the defendant.
- [47]It is not necessary therefore to deal specifically with whether or not the highway where the collision occurred was, for the purpose of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Road Rules) Regulation 1999, a ‘freeway’.
Issue 2 - Contribution
- [48]The defendant submits that the plaintiff has been contributory negligent and that his responsibility for the collision is in the order of 60%.
- [49]That figure was arrived at upon reliance of FAI General Insurance Co v Curtin.
- [50]The defendant says that the evidence supports its contention that the plaintiff was negligent in driving into the vehicle of Ms Daniels.
- [51]It is true that the plaintiff did not see the hazard lights at all of Ms Daniels car even though Mr and Mrs Nathan had seen it from a distance.
- [52]It is also true that the plaintiff himself concedes that he only saw the vehicle once he had moved into the right lane after he had passed a car travelling directly in front of him in the middle lane.
- [53]It is also true that he did not slow down or apply his brakes as he approached the vehicle. It was only after he realised it was actually stopped that he had then swerved to avoid it.
- [54]The evidence of Mr Nathan, an off duty police officer must however be viewed in its proper light. At the material time, he was a member of the Beenleigh Traffic Branch. His occupation would in my view have made Mr Nathan more observant than the average road user and may explain why he saw the vehicle first and then directed his wife’s attention to it who had not seen it at that point.
- [55]Further there is no evidence of excessive speed by the plaintiff or that he was attempting to carry out his initial passing manoeuvre in any unsafe manner.
- [56]The photos of Exhibit 11 clearly show a dip in the carriageway just prior to where the collision is said to have approximately occurred and the plaintiff gave evidence that he was travelling in the middle lane keeping a proper lookout with regard to the traffic in his lane and any traffic to his left (there being no traffic to his right) prior to merging into the right lane.
- [57]The defendant relies on the factual similarities which arose in Curtin to establish the percentage figure argued here.
- [58]While there are some similarities in Curtin such as the plaintiff ‘s car was white, it had its hazard lights on, other cars had safely negotiated around the plaintiff’s vehicle, the defendant was travelling at the speed limit and his view ahead was unrestricted for at least 300 metres, there are also stark differences.
- [59]In that case, the carriageway was only 2 lanes (one lane in each direction) unlike here where there were 3 lanes in each direction. It was at night time when the collision occurred and the vehicle not only had its hazard lights on but it also had its headlights and tail lights on. There was also no overhead street lighting thus creating a completely dark environment.
- [60]In that case, the defendant admitted he had only seen the plaintiff’s vehicle when he was only a short distance away from it notwithstanding it had the lights already mentioned illuminated against a dark environment and notwithstanding he had an unrestricted view ahead for at least 300 metres. He admitted that he had not seen the lights of the plaintiff’s vehicle at any stage prior to the collision.
- [61]In this case however, the plaintiff was travelling behind a vehicle in the middle lane and had just come out of a dip in the road before he started his passing manoeuvre into the right hand lane.
- [62]He did not have an unrestricted view in circumstances described in Curtin.
- [63]However that is not the end of the matter.
- [64]The plaintiff in this case, Mr Freeleagus, also gave evidence that he only first saw the defendant’s vehicle just after he moved into that lane. He then checked his mirrors (again) once he had moved over and then when he ‘faced forward again’ that’s when he realised that Ms Daniel’s car had stopped and he tried to swerve. (T55 l 1-10).
- [65]It is plain on any view of that version that the plaintiff failed to keep sufficient or adequate lookout once he moved into the right hand lane even if his initial passing manoeuvre from the middle lane was not in anyway executed in an unsafe manner.
- [66]Had the plaintiff kept a better lookout after he had commenced that manoeuvre into the right lane, he would have, in my view, been able to avoid the collision had he been more observant of what was situated ahead in that lane.
- [67]Accordingly, I find that the plaintiff has contributed to the collision but not to the degree asserted by the defendant having taken into account all of the relevant circumstances.
- [68]I find the plaintiff to have been 30% contributory negligent.
Issue 3 – Quantum of Damages
- [69]Both parties provided to the court useful and concise Schedule of Damages on this issue.
The Plaintiff’s evidence
- [70]The plaintiff was aged 19 years at the date of the accident having been born on the 29th September 1980.
- [71]He gave evidence that immediately after the accident, he felt pain in his neck and had felt the ‘shakes’ while waiting to be cut from his vehicle.
- [72]He said he was taken to hospital in pain and was subsequently discharged the same day with pain relief medication.
- [73]He attended on his General Practitioner on the 1st December 2000 and was prescribed further mediation by the GP for his persisting soreness in his head, neck and shoulders and also for his anxiety.
- [74]He was also given a referral for physiotherapy at that time.
- [75]The plaintiff gave evidence that at the time of the accident (27th November 2000) he had been working full time for approximately two years as a Storeman at Protector Glass Industries (‘PGI’).
- [76]He had, initially after leaving school at Gr 12, trained as a mechanic for approximately a year but unfortunately the company which he was working for went broke.
- [77]He subsequently obtained his position at PGI which required him to perform manual work which included above shoulder activities.
- [78]He gave evidence that he had performed that work satisfactorily prior to the accident insofar as he had no trouble keeping up to production numbers required.
- [79]He was required to take two (2) weeks off work post accident but subsequently returned on light duties with his GP’s permission. However, after he returned to work he noticed he was unable to keep up to production and was dismissed from his employment in January 2001.
- [80]He gave evidence that he experienced pain in his neck when he had first returned to work however the pain was ‘alright’ when he was not working during the time he was dismissed up to his return to work in October 2001.
- [81]He said that this was because he wasn’t really doing anything. His evidence was unchallenged in that regard.
- [82]He gave evidence that he also had begun to have bouts of anxiety attacks straight after the accident which subsequently subsided with medication after a period of 6 months.
- [83]He also gave evidence that after the accident he had given up playing major sports but had continued to do a bit of surfing and play some touch football. He also gave evidence that he had played some rugby union for about six weeks before he stopped playing because of injury.
- [84]He said that the injury in question was to his hand however said that he was sore from sport in general and that’s why he also stopped.
- [85]He also gave evidence that he was sure that didn’t play more than one season of rugby and said that he had not played the whole of a season in any event due to the injury received to his hand.
- [86]He had also tried boxing training which also only lasted a short time, 4 or 5 times at best because of the fatigue he felt.
- [87]After the plaintiff returned to work in October 2001, he gave evidence that he did not receive any medical treatment after that time in respect of his neck or his anxiety attacks however said that he had simply adopted self-help remedies himself in order to manage.
- [88]Those remedies included being careful in the activities which he performed, giving himself deep heat and massages in respect to his neck and reading books which he had received from the psychiatrist.
- [89]He gave evidence that upon his return to work in October 2001, he was required to lift up to 20kgs on his own and sometimes up to 50 kgs in tandem.
- [90]He had also obtained his truck and forklift licences. He gave evidence that the forklift driving did cause him difficulties when he looked over his shoulder when reversing and he would at times feel stiffness in his neck at the end of the day.
- [91]He gave evidence at trial that he presently still experienced general stiffness in his neck once a month or so from sleeping or work but was working full time as a truck driver without difficulty.
The medical evidence
- [92]The medical evidence available for consideration was as tendered in exhibit form during the proceedings.
Other evidence available
- [93]This tendered evidence included the plaintiff’s tax returns and the HIC and WorkCover documentation.
Credit Issues
- [94]My assessment of the plaintiff was of a hardworking genuine young man who gave his evidence in a forthright and honest manner.
- [95]There was nothing certainly to suggest that he attempted or was attempting to be deliberately evasive at any time during the giving of his evidence to the court.
- [96]Accordingly, I find the plaintiff to be a credible witness and I have no reason to doubt the veracity of his evidence.
General damages
- [97]I have assessed general damages at $25,000.00.
- [98]I have assessed this amount based on the evidence given by the plaintiff and the medical evidence available.
The physical injuries suffered.
- [99]I accept the opinion of Dr Pentis.
- [100]I am satisfied that the plaintiff did suffer soft tissue musculo-ligamentous injuries to the cervical region of his spine as a result of the stated accident which has left him with a residual incapacity.
- [101]I accept that the residual incapacity he was been left with will affect his ability to do certain activities even though that residual incapacity he has not prevented him from working full time.
- [102]The evidence available supports that conclusion.
- [103]The plaintiff complained of immediate pain in his neck region directly after the accident, which was subsequently treated by medication and physiotherapy.
- [104]He was careful to limit his activities thereafter in order not to strain that area. He complained of stiffness relating to his neck more particularly after he returned to the workforce in October 2001 which has persisted.
- [105]He reported to both Drs Pentis and Pincus in 2006 that he was continuing to suffer symptoms relating to his neck which arose dependent upon certain activities.
- [106]The defendant submits that the opinion of Dr Pincus ought to be preferred.
- [107]In support of that submission the defendant pointed to the history provided by the plaintiff as stated in the 1st report of Dr Pincus.
- [108]That history related to the reported resolution of the neck injury within a week without treatment and the fact that the plaintiff had told Dr Pincus that he had been playing rugby over two seasons until he had injured his hand in the latter.
- [109]That submission however ignores the following points.
- [110]Dr Pincus gave evidence that it did not make any difference to his opinion whether or not the plaintiff had in fact received some treatment and had only played rugby during 1 season rather than the 2 seasons, which he what he had been led to believe.
- [111]He stated his opinion would still be the same regardless that is, the plaintiff had not suffered any particularly significant injury to his neck in light of the fact that he had returned to rugby and had returned to the type of work he had since October 2001.
- [112]Other evidence available however confirms that the history provided by the plaintiff to Dr Pincus at the 1st consultation was not correct insofar as his neck did not resolve week within a week (see Ex 4 where it is noted that the plaintiff was referred to physiotherapy and only returned to light duties at work on 11th December 2000), that he continued to have problems (which he reported both to Drs Pentis and Pincus subsequently in 2006) which had not resolved and certain activities at work caused him to suffer problems with his neck.
The psychological injury suffered.
- [113]The medical evidence tendered at hearing was uncontested and confirmed the account given by the plaintiff.
- [114]That evidence supports the conclusion that the plaintiff has also suffered a psychological injury as a result of the stated accident which required treatment.
- [115]That injury only resolved after approximately 6 months.
- [116]In assessing all of the stated injuries suffered as a result of the stated accident, I assess general damages in the order of $25,000.
- [117]Interest is assessed on 2/3 ($16,667 x 2% x 5.75 years) in the order of $1915.
(Past) Economic Loss
- [118]Based on the tax returns for the years ending 2000 and 2001, an average per week of the net income the plaintiff could have earned during the subsequent 9 months post accident is calculated as $517.
- [119]I have arrived at that figure by the following method:
Yr ending 2000 – Taxable Income $30673 – Tax and Medicare Levy $6870 = $23803 divided by 52 weeks = $457
Yr ending 2001 – Taxable Income $17330 – Tax and no Medicare Levy $3403 = $13927 divided by 21 weeks (1 Jul 00 – 27 Nov 00) = $663
Average per week over 73 weeks = $517
- [120]The past economic loss assessed therefore is:
$482WC + $517 x 39 weeks ($20,163) = $20163
Interest is assessed on $20163 x 5% x 5.75 yrs = $5796
- [121]The defendant submits that 20% should be allowed for contingencies because it was not clear whether the plaintiff would have lost his job in any event.
- [122]I cannot accept that submission. There was simply no evidence to support the conclusion that the plaintiff would have lost his job. He denied having received any written warnings regarding his performance prior to accident occurring and no evidence was tendered to prove otherwise that he had.
- [123]Accordingly, I make no deduction for contingencies in the circumstances.
(Past) Superannuation
- [124]8% of $20163 = $1613
(Future) Economic Loss
- [125]The plaintiff submits that a global award in the order of $25,000 should be made to take into account the effect which the accident has had upon his earning capacity in the future on the open labour market.
- [126]The defendant, on the other hand, submits that there should be no award for this head of damages on the basis that he has no ongoing physical or psychological impairment which would affect his employability in the future.
- [127]I cannot accept the defendant’s submission in view of the evidence I have preferred in this case.
- [128]However, that is not the end of the matter.
- [129]There is no evidence to support a conclusion that the plaintiff is still suffering from any psychological impairment after the end of 2001. Indeed, Dr Leong opined that the injury suffered by the plaintiff had gone into remission.
- [130]There is however evidence to support a conclusion that the plaintiff is still suffering from a residual physical impairment which will affect his employability in the future. (see Ex 6).
- [131]The plaintiff also gave evidence to support a conclusion that his employability will be affected insofar as he is now limited in respect of the types of jobs which he might do without suffering physical symptoms as a result (for example forklift driving).
- [132]That evidence however must be viewed in light of the fact that the plaintiff has been employed full time since October 2001 without any significant difficulty. He has been employed in manual work since that time which has involved a good deal of lifting involving weights up to at least 20 – 25 kgs notwithstanding that I accept that the plaintiff had (undoubtedly) exercised care when performing those duties.
- [133]The plaintiff himself gave evidence that his neck is only generally stiff now once every month or so.
- [134]Accordingly, taking all of those factors into account, I assess future economic loss in the order of $15,000.
Future Superannuation
- [135]9% of $15,000 = $1350.
Special Damages
- [136]Workcover Outlays = $257
- [137]HIC = $914
- [138]Out of Pockets (anti depressant medication) at $40 per month for 6 months = $240
(There was no evidence available to support a conclusion that the relevant medication cost $40 per fortnight other than a possibility that may have been the case as stated in the evidence by the plaintiff).
- [139]I therefore assess special damages in the order of $1411
Interest assessed at $497 x 5% x 5.75 yrs = $1428
Griffiths v Kirkemeyer
- [140]The evidence supports a conclusion that the plaintiff’s mother provided him care and assistance in the order of approximately 10 hours in that she drove the plaintiff to and from his respective medical appointments.
- [141]Accordingly, I assess the Griffiths v Kirkemeyer to be:
10 hours at $15 = $150
Interest assessed at $150 x 5% x 5.75 = $43
Travel Expenses
- [142]The plaintiff seeks a nominal amount for travelling expenses incurred by the plaintiff’s mother.
- [143]I am not inclined to make this award in light of the fact that there was no tangible evidence provided to the court (other than the plaintiff’s evidence in this regard) which could assist me in an assessment.
Summary of Damages
General Damages | $25,000.00 |
Interest on 2/3 ($16,667 x 2% x 5.75 years) | $1,915.00 |
Past Economic Loss ($482WC + $517 x 39 weeks) | $20,163.00 |
Interest on (5% x 5.75 years) | $5,796.00 |
Past Superannuation (8% of $20,163) | $1,613.00 |
Future Economic Loss | $15,000.00 |
Future Superannuation (9% of $15,000) | $1,350.00 |
Special Damages | $1,411.00 |
Griffiths v Kirkemeyer (10 hours at $15) | $150.00 |
Interest at ($150 x 5% x 5.75 years) | $43.00 |
TOTAL | $72,441.00 |
Less Contribution of 30% | $50,709.00 |
Order
The order of the court is that the nominal defendant pay to the plaintiff damages in the amount of $50,709.00.
The nominal defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs in accordance with the applicable scale, to be assessed on a standard basis.