NAJJAR v GOVERNMENT INSURANCE OFFICE OF NEW SOUTH WALES [1992] NSWCA 170
NSW Caselaw
Full text
Select any passage to save a personal note with optional tags.
NAJJAR vy GOVERNMENT INSURANCE OFFICE OF NEW SOUTH
WALES
SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL
CLARKE, HANDLEY JJA and SAMUELS AJA
12 August 1992, 12 August 1992
[1992] NSWCA 170
DAMAGES — quantum — no question of principle.
Clarke JA I will ask Justice Samuels to give the first judgment. SAMUELS
AJA The appellant, the plaintiff below, was injured in a motor vehicle accident
which occurred on 22 April 1985 when he was aged thirty seven. He made a
claim for damages which was heard by Acting Judge Garling on 3 July 1990.
Liability was admitted.
The learned judge assessed the damages at a total sum of $18,524.82 made up
of damages for pain and suffering, loss of amenities and the like in the amount
of $15,000 with the balance allocated to medical, hospital and other out of pocket
expenses.
The appeal comes from that order, it being contended that the assessment was
inadequate. The appellant does not challenge any findings of fact made by the
trial judge, but disputes the value which he placed upon them.
The injuries which the appellant suffered are compendiously stated in the
judgment, as being injuries to the right neck, left shoulder, left knee and ribs, the
appellant having hit his head on the car window and his left knee on the radio
console.
Subsequently he complained of pain in the right shoulder, tenderness in his
neck and legs, and headaches. By September 1985 the learned judge found that
all injuries and their consequences, save for the headaches and some problem
with the left knee, had resolved; and the headaches had substantially disappeared
by December of 1989.
In 1986, because of complaints of disability in the left knee, an arthroscopy
was performed which revealed a tear in the left medial meniscus which was
repaired. For this purpose it seems that two admissions to hospital were involved,
one in May 1986 and one in November of the same year.
The plaintiff had not worked in any gainful employment since September
1977. The claim made in the statement of claim for future loss of earnings was
understandably rejected. The learned judge did not think that the plaintiff had at
any stage attempted to obtain work or had been serious about getting
employment, and had, in any case, no incapacity which disabled him from doing
whatever it was he was otherwise capable of working at.
The remaining question, therefore, was the assessment of damages for pain
and suffering and so forth, and the learned judge's findings are as follows: "That
being so in assessing general damages I make allowance for the injuries to the
plaintiff's right shoulder, neck and head, I make allowance for his ongoing
headaches which are substantially controlled by medication, and I make
allowance for the problems which he had with his knee up to the time of
operation and the continuing minor degree of discomfort in the left knee. I take
2 UNREPORTED JUDGMENTS
into account the fact that there is the possibility of the onset of osteoarthritis at
some time in the future, and that in respect of all of those injuries the plaintiff has
sustained pain and suffering and will continue to do so into the future. On the
whole I do not think that the plaintiffs injuries, with the exception of the knee,
were significant and I think that the plaintiffs injury to his knee since the
operation has been substantially improved and constitutes a minor discomfort."
In my view those conclusions are entirely justified by the evidence, and the
value which the learned judge placed upon them cannot, it seems to me, be
regarded as wholly disproportionate to the injuries and their sequelae. That being
the case, the appellant has failed to satisfy the test which is required for success
in a proceeding of this kind and the appeal must be dismissed with costs.
Clarke JA I agree.
Handley JA I also agree.
SAMUELS AJA: The order of the Court will be that the appeal is dismissed
with costs.
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Counsel for the Appellant! M CUMMINGS, Instructed by: SALMON
CONNOLLY and Co
Counsel for the Respondent: C BARRY/B MacRAE, Instructed by:
GOVERNMENT INSURANCE OFFICE OF NEW SOUTH WALES