NSW Caselaw
SMITH v ROBINSON
SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL
MAHONEY and MEAGHER JJA 14 March 1995, 23 March 1995
[1995] NSWCA 438
Motor vehicle accident — Whether general damages excessive — Whether judge erred in holding dental difficulties did not result from motor vehicle accident
Appeal from District Court — Damages for motor vehicle accident — Whether general damages excessive — Whether judge erred in holding dental difficulties did not result from motor vehicle accident — Held: General damages high but not appealably excessive — Dental difficulties did not result from motor vehicle accident — If they did, on reassessment, larger verdict would not result.
Mahoney JA On 15 August 1991 the plaintiff Pamela June Robinson was injured in a substantial motor vehicle accident. She was then some thirty-nine years of age.
She sued the defendant Joan Ethel Smith for damages. Liability was admitted. On 29 August 1994 the issue of damages was tried by McLachlan DCJ. On 2 September 1994 his Honour gave judgment for the plaintiff for $58,690.30. The defendant appealed against his Honour's judgment and the plaintiff cross-appealed.
His Honour's judgment was made up as follows:
General damages $53,860.00 Past economic loss 351.63 Out-of-pocket expenses 2,998.22 Allowance for future psychiatric counselling 2,000.00 Allowance for future medication and expenditures 2,000.00 Interest 158.67 $61,368.52 LESS credit agreed between the parties 2.678.22 $58,690.30
The defendant has appealed only in respect of the award for general damages. The plaintiff has cross-appealed in respect of two matters: his Honour's conclusion that an injury to the plaintiffs jaw was not the result of the accident; and his conclusion that there should be no award for future economic loss.
The plaintiffs claims and the nature of the primary injury suffered by her are not significantly in doubt and it is not necessary for me to detail them. They were described by the judge as being: "... the familiar whiplash allegation... a dislocated jaw, injury to neck and back and other injuries including psychological and/or psychiatric allegations". The plaintiff had been "shaken around by the
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate