GOVERNMENT INSURANCE OFFICE OF NEW SOUTH WALES v GLYNIS SANDRA LAMPARD [1989] NSWCA 86

GOVERNMENT INSURANCE OFFICE OF NEW SOUTH WALES v GLYNIS SANDRA LAMPARD

SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

MAHONEY, PRIESTLEY and MEAGHER JJA 7 November 1989, 7 November 1989

[1989] NSWCA 86

COMMON LAW — NEGLIGENCE — NO QUESTION OF PRINCIPLE ORDERS Appeal dismissed with costs.

Meagher JA The present respondent, Mrs Lampard, whom I shall refer to as the plaintiff, was injured in an accident which took place on 11 October 1985. That accident, it is common ground, was caused by the driving of an offending vehicle for which the appellant, the Government Insurance Office of NSW is responsible. The only question in the present case relates to damages.

Acomplicating fact is that in December 1984, less than a year before the motor car accident in question, the plaintiff had suffered a fall while she was roller-skating. There is also a fact which is not in dispute, that on 5 June 1987 the plaintiff underwent an operation to her spine which was a C6-7 hemilaminectomy and foraminotomy.

The ultimate decision of his Honour Judge Neil in the District Court was in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $92,088.29. The appellant has submitted that this verdict is not sustainable.

lam afraid that in my view his Honour was entitled to come to the conclusion which he did, despite the very thorough and able arguments to which we have been treated by Mr Shore on behalf of the Government Insurance Office.

The first ground that was argued was his Honour erred in that finding that the injuries suffered in the skating accident in December 1984 was an injury to her right shoulder. What that really means was his Honour was in error in holding that any more than her right shoulder was injured. The fact of the matter is the plaintiff at all stages suffered from a degenerative spinal condition of which, at the time of the roller skating accident, she was unaware. The evidence does disclose that although his Honour said dogmatically that the only injury which she sustained in the roller skating accident was an injury to her right shoulder, that is probably not correct. Mr Shore has certainly convinced me that in addition to that injury there was involved in the roller skating accident an injury which aggravated her existing cervical condition. However, for reasons which will later emerge, I do not think that matters.