Case v Sydney Trains [2023] NSWDC 361

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Case v Sydney Trains [2023] NSWDC 361 Hearing dates: 17 July 2023 Date of orders: 8 September 2023 Decision date: 08 September 2023 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: Weber SC DCJ Decision: See Orders Catchwords: PERSONAL INJURY – Economic Loss – Post Out of Pocket Expenses – Future Treatment Expenses Legislation Cited: Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 Transport Administration Act 1988 (NSW) the Civil Procedure Act 2005 Cases Cited: Commercial Union Assurance Co of Australia Ltd v Ferrcom Pty Ltd (1991) 22 NSWLR 389 Williams v Twynam Agricultural Group Pty Ltd and Anor [2011] NSWSC 1098 Penrith City v Parks [2004] NSWCA 201 Allard v Jones Lang Lasalle (Vic) Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCA 325 Texts Cited: Nil Category: Principal judgment Parties: Plaintiff: Peggy Case Defendant: Sydney Trains Representation: Counsel: Plaintiff: Mr H Weller (Solicitor) Defendant: Mr N Hogan

Solicitors: Plaintiff: Herbert Weller Defendant: Ashurst File Number(s): 2021/00018661 Publication restriction: None

JUDGMENT

Introduction 1. On 22 January 2018, the plaintiff and her husband were passengers on a train travelling from Parramatta to Richmond. They were on the upper level of the carriage as it was approaching Richmond. Richmond Station is at the end of the defendant's T5 Line 2. Between the East Richmond and Richmond stations the plaintiff was near the stairwell which led down to the vestibule of the carriage. 3. The train failed to slow down and collided into the buffer stop at the end of Richmond station. 4. The impact of the train colliding into the buffer stop caused the Plaintiff to be thrown forward from the second descending step down onto the floor of the vestibule. 5. The Plaintiff's husband was also similarly thrown to the floor of the vestibule. The Plaintiff briefly lost consciousness. She says that she regained consciousness on the floor of the vestibule. 6. The plaintiff and her husband were conveyed by ambulance to the Nepean Hospital, where she was treated in the emergency ward. She had suffered minor lacerations which were sutured. The plaintiff was discharged and advised told to consult her local doctor for removal of the sutures. The Plaintiff also sustained minor injuries to her left arm, head, left shoulder, hip and knee. 7. Other than taking Panadol and consulting her GP, Doctor Tran, the Plaintiff has managed her symptoms without further medical treatment. 8. The Plaintiff is 62 years of age. At the time of the accident, she was 56. She left school at the age of 14 in 1975 without learning to read or write, and found work on local farms picking vegetables and fruit. Apart from time off around the birth of her 5 children she has worked on local farms picking fruit and vegetables since the age of 14 until the date of the accident or very shortly thereafter. 9. The defendant has admitted liability and accordingly only issues of quantum were in dispute. The plaintiff sought namely four heads of damage; past and future economic loss, past out-of-pocket expenses, and future treatment expenses. There was no claim for non-economic loss, as the Plaintiff does not reach the applicable statutory threshold (s131 of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999). 10. The defendant submitted that there is only very minimal medico-legal and oral evidence in support of the Plaintiff's case on economic loss. It went on to submit that where there is such evidence, it only supports a finding that the extent and nature of the Plaintiff's accident-related injuries are mild. Consequently, any resulting impairment of her earning capacity is minor, and therefore only sounds in a very modest award of damages. 11. I agree with these submissions