METRO MEAT (COOTAMUNDRA) LTD v RICARDO [1993] NSWCA 179

METRO MEAT (COOTAMUNDRA) LTD v RICARDO

SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

KirBy ACJ, MAHONEY AP and CLARKE JA 19 October 1993, 2 November 1993

[1993] NSWCA 179

DAMAGES — jury verdict — whether unreasonable and excessive — verdict of $560,000 for injury to eye of meat slicer aged 38 years — causes double vision, headaches and dizziness — effectively unemployed after injury — good pre-injury work record — linguistic and other employment limitations.

held:

(1) An appellate court considering a jury's verdict for alleged excess must consider the whole of the evidence in the case to determine whether the verdict is such that reasonable jurors could not have reached it.

Hocking v Bell (1945) 31 CLR 430; Calin v The Greater Union Organisation Pty Ltd (1991) 173 CLR 33 applied;

(2) The trial judge's directions to the jury were unchallenged and reflected the evidence and submissions of the parties. They provided a rational and reasonable explanation of the jury's verdict.

Eggins v Brooms Head Bowling and Recreational Club Ltd (1986) 5 NSWLR 521 (CA) considered;

(3) Upon the hypotheses reasonably open to the jury, the verdict was not unreasonable nor excessive.

PRACTICE and PROCEDURE - jury verdict - alleged excess - failure to challenge judge's directions - directions accurately reflect evidence and submissions - jury's verdict sustained, upon one view of the case, reflected in the directions - held: Verdict not so unreasonable or unjust as to authorise appellate intervention.

Calin v The Greater Union Organisation Pty Ltd (1991) 153 CLR 33 applied.

JURY - verdict - appeal against - observations by Kirby ACJ on similarity between principles applied in the review of verdicts of civil juries and those of criminal juries - duty of appellate court to examine the whole of the evidence - duty of court to reach its own independent opinion - whether jury could reasonably conclude, as it did, upon the evidence established at trial.