SAMIOS v ROYAL PRINCE ALFRED HOSPITAL [1992] NSWCA 219

SAMIOS v ROYAL PRINCE ALFRED HOSPITAL SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

CLARKE and HANDLEY JJA, and SAMUELS AJA

14 August 1992, 14 August 1992

[1992] NSWCA 219

DAMAGES — JURY VERDICT INADEQUATE — RE-ASSESSMENT.

Clarke JA This is an appeal from a judgment in favour of the appellant in the sum of $7,500 which was entered following a jury trial in which the jury found a verdict for the appellant in the sum of $14,056.46.

The appellant had sued the respondent for damages for injuries suffered on 17 January 1986 in the course of her employment by the respondent. Her case on liability was that she slipped on a caterpillar in circumstances which established negligence on the part of her employer.

In that incident she suffered an injury to her left elbow and left knee cap. She also sought to claim damages in respect of further injuries to her left knee which were caused when she was knocked over by a Doberman on 8 December 1987. It was her case that these later injuries were causally related to the earlier negligence of the respondent.

It was agreed at the trial that the treatment expenses and wage loss consequent upon the first accident amounted to $7,056.46.

Evidence on the issue of damages came from the appellant, Dr Holman, the surgeon who treated her in respect of the first accident and Dr Stally who treated her in respect of the second accident. The respondent called no medical evidence.

As I have already indicated, the jury found in the appellant's favour on the issue of liability and assessed damages in the sum of $14,056.46.

It is apparent therefore that the jury assessed general damages in the sum of $7,000. The difference between that figure and the judgment represented interest allowed on the general damages.

In accordance with the principles which govern an appeal against a jury verdict upon the basis of perversity or upon the basis that it is against the evidence, it is proper to approach the appeal upon the assumption that the jury were not satisfied that the disabilities which resulted from the second incident were to be laid at the feet of the respondent.