IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUS:.RALIA REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Judgment delivered at__SY¥DNEY. on THURSDAY, 27th JULY.1964 WM Howton, Gort, Brit, Melb, a ve ERLLLIE COMA Ve ROGGE. _MAXBEN Zn these proceedings the plaintiff, a resident ef the State of Victoria, claims damages for personal : injuries whieh are said to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant who is a resident of the State of Hew : South Wales, 'he defendant did not appear in the proceedings and an interlocutery Judgment by default was entered on tha 25th May 1961. he matter now cones before me for the assessment of damages pursuant to an order of the Chief Justice made on the 22nd May 1961. The plaintiff was a passenger in a moter vehiele which overturned whilst travelling along the Hume Highway on the 13th February 1960. At the time of the accident he was unmarried and was twenty-seven years of age, Y He was 9 public servant of the State of Victoris employed in the Companies Registration Branch im Melbourne. As a result of the overturning of the vehicle in whieh he was ( travelling he received a number of injuries, the more | , serious of which were facial lacerations and an iajury to '| fe, " the left eye. The lacerations have left him with mltinle 2 J sears on the face, the forehead, the ehin and the right il lower lip, 0f these the scarring to the forehead is the most extensive although that on the right lower lip is alse notiesable ani-has ocuasioned him no little cencern. "The injury to the eye eaused a large haemorrhage into the vitrecus body and has left him with 2 corneal dear which . has resulted ina degroe of astignatism. in addition te these injuries the plaintiff suffered a heavy blow on the back of the head and either this er the eye injury, or a combination of beth, hes remlted in frequent and severe. heedaches, Additionally, he reseived bruises and laceration to the shin. Following his injuries the i 2. was taken to the Gundagai Hospital where he received preliminary medical attention and then he was taken by ambulance to the Wagga Wagga Base Hospitel where his injuries were attended to and where he remained for about a month, Thereafter he was in bed at home for about a wonth and he appears to have resumed work on or about the 27th July. 1960, As will be seen he was absent from work from the 13th February 1960 to about 27th July in the same year, During part of this time he was on sick leave with pay and, pursuant to his siek leave entitlement, he received the sum of flu, 12. 4. If, however, he had been able to perform hig duties during this period his salary would have amounted to £522, 13. 8 He had been in the same employment for about four years prior to the agcident and his sick leave entitlement had accumilated enmally et. the rate of sight daye on:full' pay and eight days om half pay and the amount which he actually redeived was aaid to be the equivalent of thirteen days on full pay and thirty-nine daya on half pay. Apparently, plosprior.; te the accident, he had had gecasion to be absent on sick leave for some short period or periods. Additionally, it was «estimated that if he hed not been disabled he would, during the perydod for whieh he vas actually absent from work, have received an asount by way of overtime totalling £93. 8. 9 Other amounts were claimed in veepeet of moneys expended on conveyance by ambulance and medical hospital and ineidental expenses. In all, these items amounted to £220, 7. 6. The question as to what amount should be awarded in respect of the plaintiff's injuries has caused me some concern, 'The sears on the plaintiff's forehead have nov reached their permanent stage and it is said that At 4s uniikely that their appearance could be improved by any further surgical attention, They ere extensive but, 3. whilst acticeable and somewhat unsightly, are in no way offensive. Nevertheless, I am sure that the plaintiff is conseious of them and that to some extent they have affected his outlook on life. How long he will be so affected is, of course, a matter of speculation. It appears, however, that the sears on the lower lip can be greatly reduced by surgery and the medical evidence was to the effect that an operation should be performed for this purpose. Such an operation amd hospitaligation, it is seid, will cost about fifty guineas and will necessitate an absence from work for a few days. The injury to the eye will mean that in future the plaintif' will have to wear spectacles to correct his vision. Thre haemorrhage into the back of the eye, it is gaid, will be absorbed in a reasonably shert time but the astigmatism ouused by the corneal scar is permanent and will Begessitate the permanent wearing of spectacles. I have no doubt that he has experienced considerable discomfort from this injury though it seems likely that with the wearing of spectacles his general condition will improve, There was, howeveg a suggestion that there is some risk of detachment of the retina thongh this, I think, is regarded by his medical advisers as a more or less remote possibility. These are, in my view, the more serious of the plaintif''s injuries though it was suggested that his headaches may have resulted from some not readily discernible brain injury. But the suggestion & some such injury was no move than tentative and the injuries which he, in fact, suffered are more than sufficient to account for his history ef headaches and irritability and the wnustial lack of interest whieh it is said he has exhibited since the accident, I think it likely that these sequelae are transient and that, as Dr, Donald suggested, the plaintiff's qundition in these xespects will improve rapidly when the worry of this case is removed, The plaintiff also complains of frequent beckeehe ih association with his headaches and it has been foand upon examination that one of bis legs is slightly shorter than the ether and this causes a slight tilt of the dety to one side, This abuormality 4id not occasion the plaintif® any pain prior to the ecaident but, acverding to the evidence, 1¢ vas inevitable that it vonld do s0 at some future time, In the result, it ie said, the accident has hastened the progress of the plaintif''s condition to the stage vhere it causes hin pein and inconventence though by how much 1% has been hastened it ts difficult to says the defendant ¢id not appear at the hearing and consequently the witnestes were not cross-axanined eonserning the plaintiff's condition, Severtheless, I an datisfied that, although he did not mintsise any of his couplaintes the plaintitr has undergone a very trying and Cistressing experienee and though most of the after affects are transitory, he will be left with extensive scarring to the forehead and with a degree of imperfection in his left eyes To some extent the scarring of his fase has affected his outlook on life tut I feel sure that when he finds that this will mot disadvantage hin ia the kind of ecoupation vhich ; he propeses to follow er in the everyday affairs of life he vill [ adjust Mimself to his somewhat changed condition, Again I am watiafied that 1t is likely thet the ccourrense of headaches will become Less frequent end eventually sease and that, with the aid . of spectactes, he will be able to undertake, after some Little i delay, the studies vnteh be says be intended to commence in February 1960, Tis bagk, no doubt, will continue at tines to trouble him but the whole of this disability qannet be laid i at the door of the defendant, In all the eirounstances i think a faiy sum Se to be awarded for general damages is £1,750 and to this sum there should be added a number of other items. First of all the plaintiff claimed the sum of £522. 13. 8 in respect of wages lost up to the time of the trial. In fact, he revetved £144, 12. % of this sum end at the trial I thought 4% proper that the difference /° these two amounts should be alloved together with a sum sufficient to compensate the pladatife for the extinguishment of his sick leave entitlement. But before the trial the plaintiff was absent from work on gick leave for about twelve days as the result of an illness unsonnected with the acaident and, singe his sick leave entitlement was exhausted, his absense was at his own expense, Farther the plaintiff will require some little time off for the operation which it is proposed that he should have for the purpose of reducing the scar to his lower lip, Taking these matters into consideration and adding to then the pousibility that he may require some further little time off en acount of sickness before his sick leavo entitlement amsunes any significant proportions, I think I should ddaregard the fact that he received sick leave on pay for part of the time after the acoident. In the result the sum ef £522, 13. 8 should, in my opinion, be added to the general dmnages. In addition to this there should also be added the swam of £220, 7. 6 for ambulance, hospital, medical and imeidental expenses already incurred; /a3a- Se % for the eo@st of an operation te his lower lip; £20 for medical eonsultation in relation to his eye and the provision of speetacles and £93. 8 9 in respect of overtime which he would hmte earned if he had been able to work during the period for which he was disabled. The total of all these items of damage fa £2658. 19, 11 but since it 1s possible the plaintiff wHll need some further medieval attention and other spectacles fwom tiwe to time I assess his damages at £2,700. Judgment may therefore be entered for the plaintiff for this amount wAth costs.