LE v DOBE [1996] NSWCA 319

LE v DOBE

SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES — COURT OF APPEAL

HANDLEY JA, COLE JA and BEAZLEY JA 13, 14 May 1996 [1996] NSWCA 319

DAMAGES — personal injury — motor vehicle accident — assessment of future economic loss

Handley JA. I agree with Beazley JA. Cole JA. I agree with Beazley JA.

Beazley JA. This is an appeal from a decision of Garling J of the District Court on 30 May 1995.

The respondent, who was aged 47 at trial, was injured in a motor vehicle accident on 12 February 1986. Liability was admitted by the appellant and the parties agreed before trial that the respondent's contribution for contributory negligence should be assessed at 12.5%. There was also agreement between the parties as to the loss suffered by the respondent as a result of the accident, save for past loss of income and future loss of earning capacity.

The sole issue on the appeal is the correctness of the sums which his Honour awarded for those items.

At the date of the accident, the respondent was working as a contract courier with Avant Couriers and had been so engaged since 1979. She owned her own vehicle and was paid on a set scale. His Honour found that the respondent had established herself as one of Avant's top couriers. In October 1985, the respondent obtained a number of courier runs for Westpac and was given preference for other work. She worked 15 hours and travelled 461 kms a day. His Honour found that, during the period 8 October 1985 and the date of the accident on 12 February 1986, the respondent earned in excess of $23,000.

Grounds:

Initially there were 6 grounds of appeal. Ground 1 was a general ground that the damages awarded for loss of income were excessive. This ground was not separately argued as it was subsumed in the more particular grounds 2-6.

Ground 2 asserted that his Honour erred in failing to take into account, in assessing loss of income, the earnings of a comparable worker, namely another courier engaged by Avant Couriers, a Mr Scriberros. However, counsel for the appellant conceded during argument that there was no truly comparable worker in this case. This ground of appeal therefore fails.