FIELD v TIMBER INDUSTRIES LTD [1990] NSWCA 61

FIELD v TIMBER INDUSTRIES LTD

SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

KIRBY P, CLARKE and MEAGHER JJA 7 June 1990, 7 June 1990

[1990] NSWCA 61

DAMAGES — personal injuries — jury verdict — appeal against inadequacy — young labourer injured when unfenced docking saw cuts tendons on the back of his dominant hand — jury returns verdict of $58,000 — objective evidence of loss of about 75% function of the hand — claim for substantial loss of earning capacity — poor pre injury employment record — treating doctor suggests plaintiff exaggerating and fit for work — questions asked by jury concerning liability for unfenced machinery reveal possible concern about liability — whether verdict so small that no

jury could possibly have awarded it — Held: By the stringent limitations on the appellate review of a jury's verdict, the verdict could not be disturbed. Australian

Iron and Steel Ltd v Greenwood, (1962) 107 CLR 308, 327; Precision Plastics Pty Limited v Demir, (1975) 132 CLR 362, 369 applied; Ingham's Enterprises Pty Limited v Johnson, Court of Appeal, unreported, 23 March 1990 referred to.

PRACTICE and PROCEDURE — Court of Appeal — appeal from jury's verdict — whether new rule SCR Pt34 R8A authorises Court of Appeal to substitute its judgment as it thinks fit for the judgment which follows a jury's verdict. Held: It does not. The rule was inapplicable to the facts of the case. Its purpose is to permit a trial judge to take a jury's verdict notwithstanding an objection of law to the claim so that, despite any judgment entered, the jury's verdict is available to be restored if the judged, ruling is later reversed on appeal.

Supreme Court Rules, Pt34, R8A.

ORDER Appeal dismissed with costs.

Clarke JA This is an appeal by a plaintiff from a judgment entered on 30 January 1989 consequent upon a jury verdict assessing damages in favour of the plaintiff in the sum of $58,000. The ultimate judgment was $27,380.58 but that figure reflected adjustments to the jury's verdict necessitated by the provisions of the Workers Compensation Act and perhaps a payment of other expenses.