EID v MIDDLETON [1995] NSWCA 139

EID v MIDDLETON

SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

PRIESTLEY and POWELL JJA 16 March 1995, 16 March 1995 [1995] NSWCA 139

DAMAGES — PERSONAL INJURIES — plaintiff injured in car accident — defendant admitted liability — issue at trial and for appeal was whether plaintiff's schizophrenia caused or precipitated by accident. Held: the evidence regarded most favourably from the plaintiff's point of view supported the view that the accident triggered or hastened an episode of the plaintiff's schizophrenia but an essential fact for finding a causal connection between the accident and the plaintiffs recurrent and continuing schizophrenia was not established.

Priestley JA This is a plaintiffs appeal from a District Court judgment awarding the plaintiff $45,970 damages. The plaintiff had been injured in a car accident on 25 October 1980. The defendant admitted liability. The damages were assessed by his Honour Judge Christie QC.

The principal contest at the trial, and the matter raised by the plaintiff in this appeal, was whether the schizophrenia from which the plaintiff undoubtedly suffered in March 1982 was caused or precipitated by the accident of October 1980.

The plaintiff was in custody in gaol from June 1978 to August 1979 when he was released on parole. In July 1980 he was involved in an incident which led to his spending a further period in custody in 1981 and 1982. During this time he began to show what are called florid symptoms of schizophrenia. There is no doubt that these symptoms were manifesting themselves in March 1982, nor is there any doubt that their frequent subsequent recurrence would have entitled the plaintiff to substantial damages from the defendant if the defendant had caused them.

Did the evidence show the defendant had caused the onset of the plaintiff's schizophrenia? The plaintiffs theory of the necessary causality depended on his having suffered a head injury of some description at the time of the accident. Counsel for the plaintiff today did not assert the plaintiff had suffered brain damage. He did refer the court to some evidence from which a concussive injury could be inferred.