KEENAN v SKINNER BY HER NEXT FRIEND CATHERINE SKINNER [1993] NSWCA 152

KEENAN v SKINNER BY HER NEXT FRIEND CATHERINE SKINNER SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

MEAGHER, HANDLEY and Cripps JJA 24 March 1993, 24 March 1993

[1993] NSWCA 152

Question raised on appeal was whether the damages awarded were manifestly excessive in all the circumstances.

Held:

The amount awarded for economic loss was not excessive.

The amount awarded for pain and suffering was manifestly excessive, and should be reduced by 50%.

MBP (SA) Pty Ltd v Gogic (1991) 171 CLR 657

Meagher JA I will ask my brother, Mr Justice Cripps, to go first.

Cripps JA This is an appeal from Judge Hosking in the District Court of New South Wales in favour of the plaintiff in the sum of $91,881 of which $60,000 was apportioned as to general damage, 50 per cent for the pain and suffering from the date of accident to date of trial and 50 per cent for the future.

Notwithstanding Mr Petty's forceful submission, I think the only real issue in this appeal is whether the award of $60,000 damages for pain and suffering is manifestly excessive in all the circumstances.

In 1983 the respondent, who was then aged twelve, was knocked off her bicycle. She suffered a number of injuries which are set out in the medical reports placed before his Honour and referred to in his judgment.

She complained of three separate injuries: a broken ankle, a compression fracture of the seventh thoracic vertebra and also what I might compendiously describe as brain damage.

The brain damage claim was rejected by his Honour, he coming to the conclusion that such disabilities as the plaintiff might have had were not in his Honour's view relevantly related to the accident and he gave reasons that her inability to function mentally was due to other causes.

However, he did find in favour of the plaintiff that she had a compression fracture at the seventh thoracic level and also, of course, that she had broken her ankle.