THE COUNCIL OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF HUNTERS HILL v HUGHES [1994] NSWCA 70

COUNCIL OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF HUNTERS HILL v HUGHES SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

MAHONEY, PRIESTLEY and CLARKE JJA 22 June 1994, 17 August 1994

[1994] NSWCA 70

Appeal from District Court — Assessment of damages caused by defective roadworks — Injury to elderly lady.

Domestic assistance — Whether need established — Held: Evidence supported judge's conclusion that needed.

Quantum of damages for domestic assistance — On facts, need for services for which damages awarded.

Renovations of home — On facts, reasonably necessary to cope with injuries — No question of principle.

ORDERS Appeal dismissed with costs.

Mahoney JA On 31 May 1988 the plaintiff Miss Doris Irene Hughes suffered an injury for which it has been held the Council of the Municipality of Hunters Hill is responsible. On 24 September 1993 his Honour Judge Mahoney assessed the damages payable by the Council to the plaintiff at $138,000. The Council has appealed to this Court against his Honour's assessment.

The appeal has been pressed in relation to two matters: the amount included in the judgment for domestic assistance for the plaintiff; and the amount included for renovations to her home claimed to be necessary because of her injuries.

1. DOMESTIC ASSISTANCE:

Mr McCulloch for the Council submitted first that no case has been demonstrated for the provision of domestic assistance for her. I do not think that that submission should be accepted.

The plaintiff was born in 1905. She was therefore, at the time of the accident, an elderly lady. But his Honour was satisfied that before the accident she was "very active physically, attending to cooking, gardening - even up till the time of the fall - occasional lawn mowing... walking considerable distances sometimes". She was, he found, "a person with a strong voice and she was quite a spirited person". She was "gregarious and independent" and "able to use public transport whenever she wanted to, to visit one of her other siblings...". She had, he said, "many old age complaints but none of them stopped her to any appreciable extent from doing the types of things she wanted to do whenever she wanted to do them". I see no reason why his Honour's findings should not be accepted.