IVAN MAKRAGIC v GOVERNMENT INSURANCE OFFICE OF NEW SOUTH WALES and STANICA MAKRAGIC v GOVERNMENT INSURANCE OFFICE OF NEW SOUTH WALES [1990] NSWCA 118

IVAN MAKRAGIC vy GOVERNMENT INSURANCE OFFICE OF NEW SOUTH WALES and STANICA MAKRAGIC vy GOVERNMENT INSURANCE OFFICE OF NEW SOUTH WALES

SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

KIRBY P, MEAGHER and HANDLEY JJA 1 June 1990 [1990] NSWCA 118

DAMAGES — Motor vehicle incidents — Actions by male and female plaintiffs — Consolidated proceedings — In actions by male plaintiff trial judge enters judgment for defendant — held: Doubts about the extent of injuries do not sustain disbelief that injuries, proved by the evidence, actually occurred — Other errors of fact finding — Judgment for defendant set aside — Upon a reassessment judgment entered in favour of male plaintiff.

DAMAGES — Motor vehicle injuries — trial judge enters judgment in favour of female plaintiff for $500 in respect of one incident — Awards no damages in respect of another incident where negligence was shown — held: The plaintiff was entitled to recover damages in respect of the incident where the trial judge entered judgment against her — The damages awarded were inadequate — Judgment set aside — On a reassessment, judgment entered in favour of plaintiff in a larger sum.

Meagher JA Mr Ivan Makragic and his wife, Mrs Stanica Makragic, have had the misfortune to have been involved in three motor car accidents in recent years: one at Canley Vale on 11 May 1985, one at Cabramatta on 29 May 1986 and one at West Pennant Hills on 3 February 1987. The respondent Government Insurance Office was responsible for the conduct of the negligent driver in each case.

Mr Makragic has sued in respect of all three accidents. Mrs Makragic has sued in respect of the first and third accidents, not suing in respect of the second, because she was the negligent driver involved on that occasion.

All five matters were heard in a consolidated action before McDevitt DCJ, who concluded that virtually no injuries were incurred by either Mr Makragic or Mrs Makragic in any of the three accidents. In this regard,, His Honour's language is somewhat curious as he does not deny that injuries existed; what he does deny was they were casually related to the accidents. His Honour awarded Mrs Makragic a small verdict and Mr Makragic no verdict at all. They have both appealed.