GOVERNMENT INSURANCE OFFICE OF NSW v CAVANAGH [1991] NSWCA 108

GOVERNMENT INSURANCE OFFICE OF NSW v CAVANAGH

SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

SAMUELS, MEAGHER JJA and Hope AJA 6 May 1991, 6 May 1991

[1991] NSWCA 108

Damages — bodily injuries suffered in motor vehicle accident quantum — damages for future economic loss and general damages no question of principle — appeal dismissed.

Hope AJA This is an appeal from the decision of his Honour Judge Gibson given on 25 August 1989 awarding the plaintiff the sum of $304,000 in respect of injuries which she suffered as a result of a motor vehicle accident on 7 October 1984. The sum of $304,000 included the sums of $185,879 for future economic loss and $75,000 for general damages. It appears that his Honour did not allow any interest on past general damages. The appeal by the defendant challenges as excessive these amounts for future economic loss and general damages.

The plaintiff was twenty-three years of age at the time of the accident and twenty-eight years at the time of trial, and she had married very shortly before the accident. The injuries which she suffered were described by his Honour as headaches and stiffness in the shoulder and neck pain. These were the result apparently of a soft tissue whiplash type injury to the neck and cervical spine. Where an injury is ligamentous in nature it commonly improves within a few years at the latest. However, contrary to expectation the plaintiffs condition did not improve. It was critical to the conclusions of the learned trial judge that he entirely accepted the plaintiff and her evidence. What he said was that the plaintiff "impressed me as a witness of truth and a witness of accuracy and reliability. I accept her evidence as to her present symptoms and the effect on her."

She was examined by four doctors who gave evidence and by other doctors who made reports. Of the four doctors who gave evidence three agreed that she was not malingering and that she was a person who truthfully recounted what her problems were. The fourth doctor, Dr Hodgkinson, did not expressly reject her but as his Honour pointed out it appears to be implicit in his conclusion that he did not accept her, or at any rate, accept her entirely. However, there is no challenge to the conclusion of his Honour nor could there be.