ZIADE v NSW MINISTERIAL INSURANCE CORPORATION [1993] NSWCA 301

ZIADE v NSW MINISTERIAL INSURANCE CORPORATION SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

KIRBY P, MEAGHER and HANDLEY JJA 26 March 1993, 26 March 1993 [1993] NSWCA 301

DAMAGES — personal injuries — motor vehicle accident — injuries to upper back, left leg and teeth — trial judge (McLachlan DCJ) enters judgment for $17,114.14 — complaint that appealably low — judge relies on impression of plaintiff in court — records bodily manoeuvre of plaintiff jumping from witness box landing squarely on feet — suggested inconsistency of manoeuvre with complaints — observations called to the notice of parties — whether judge erred in consideration of the evidence — held: No appealable error having regard to judge's findings on the plaintiff's credit and medical reports available to the judge — appeal dismissed.

Government Insurance Office (New South Wales) v Bailey (1992) 27 NSWLR 304 (CA) applied.

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS - duty of professional care - conduct of trial of personal injuries damages case - plaintiff sole witness giving oral evidence - conflicting medical reports tendered - no medical witnesses called to give oral evidence - held: Observations by Kirby P (Meagher JA agreeing) upon the dangers of conducting trials on seriously disputed medical evidence on the basis of medical reports and the plaintiff's oral testimony alone.

Handley JA This is an appeal by a plaintiff from an assessment of damages by McLachlan DCJ.

The plaintiff, who at the time of his accident was conducting a green grocery business at Paddington, was standing on the back of his truck on 19 June 1987 when it was struck by another vehicle. He lost his balance and finished up on the footpath having injured his chin and jarred himself in the fall. He had significant dental injuries.

The plaintiff's case was conducted with an economy of effort which was really not appropriate in a case where serious injuries were alleged and substantial damages claimed. He was the only witness called to give oral evidence and on the medical issues the plaintiff's legal advisers contented themselves with tendering a bundle of medical reports. The defendant responded by tendering a further bundle of medical reports.