NICOLA v GOVERNMENT INSURANCE OFFICE OF NEW SOUTH WALES [1991] NSWCA 75

NICOLA v GOVERNMENT INSURANCE OFFICE OF NEW SOUTH WALES

SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES — COURT OF APPEAL

CLARKE JA, MEAGHER JA and HANDLEY JA 15 November 1991

[1991] NSWCA 75

QUANTUM — NO ISSUE OF LIABILITY

Handley JA. This is an appeal by a plaintiff from the assessment of the damages to which he is entitled as a result of having been injured in a motor vehicle accident as the result of the negligence of a driver of a motor vehicle for which the respondent is legally liable.

The accident occurred on 6 November 1984 when the plaintiff was a little over fifty-seven years of age. At the time he was a successful, highly regarded and well paid salesman employed in the food trade by a Mr Arquilla who gave evidence at the trial in the plaintiffs case. By the time of the trial the plaintiff was a little under sixty-three. The trial judge awarded $25,000 for general damages. This figureis challenged by Mr Hartigan who appeared for the appellant.

The plaintiff sustained injuries to his left knee, his shoulder and back and to his head. The principal result of the injuries, so far as the plaintiffs physical condition is concerned, is the injury to the left knee which has occasioned him a significant degree of disability. That knee is a candidate for early and progressive, osteoarthritic changes, so it is likely to get worse and further reduce the plaintiff's comfort and mobility.

The most serious consequence for the plaintiff has been the closed head injury. The evidence of the plaintiff, his former employer and his daughter and the expert evidence of neurologists, psychiatrists and psychologists, is that the plaintiff suffered significant organic brain damage. This manifests itself in memory loss but also in changes in his behaviour. There has also been some impairment in the plaintiff's intellectual ability. He appears to be experiencing certain personality disturbances, including depression, social withdrawal, anxieties and lack of insight. The trial judge said that speaking for himself, having observed the plaintiff in the witness-box, he would have come to the same conclusion. He made other relevant findings which I need not recapitulate.