URBAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES v SEITIS [1995] NSWCA 478

URBAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES v SEITIS

SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

KirBy P, HANDLEY and POWELL JJA 2 May 1995, 17 May 1995

[1995] NSWCA 478

DAMAGES — personal injuries — disabled passenger injured alighting from bus — suffers from cerebral palsy — had secured full-time employment with Commonwealth — employment lost challenges to allowances for past wage loss, domestic assistance, future need for wheelchair and general damages — challenge to discount of 25 per cent for vicissitudes — held: All challenges dismissed except that discount for vicissitudes should be increased from 25 per cent to 40 per cent.

HUMAN RIGHTS — equal employment opportunity — disabled worker — cerebral palsy impact of injuries on employment and life — proper approach to calculation of damages — discount for vicissitudes increased from 25 per cent to 40 per cent otherwise substantial judgment confirmed vulnerability of plaintiff considered.

DAMAGES — personal injuries — passenger descending from motor omnibus caught in door and dragged by bus — right foot run over by bus wheel — passenger suffers from cerebral palsy from birth — injuries sustained terminate employment as clerk with Commonwealth — devastating effects on personal and employment life of injured passenger — whether would have ceased work in any case following subsequent pregnancy — whether allocations for domestic assistance justified by the evidence and reasonable — whether allocation for advanced need for wheelchair warranted — whether allowance of $100,000 for general damages shown to be wrong — whether discount for vicissitudes of 25 percent in computing future loss of economic capacity erroneous — held: (allowing appeal in part): (Kirby P; Handley JA and Powell JA concurring): (1) The challenges to the allowances made for loss of wages in the past, domestic assistance, advanced possible need for use of a wheelchair and general damages were not sustained; (2) The discount for vicissitudes of 25 percent allowed by the trial judge was wrong and a higher discount of 40 per cent should be allocated to take into account the added vicissitudes that the plaintiff faced by reason of her vulnerability and the special nature of her employment as disclosed by the evidence; (3) Accordingly, total judgment reduced from $1,090,000 to $1,029,443; (4) Appellant to secure only one-fifth of its costs of the appeal.