Kraus v Sartori [2016] NSWDC 102

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Kraus v Sartori [2016] NSWDC 102 Hearing dates: 30 and 31 May 2016 Date of orders: 06 June 2016 Decision date: 06 June 2016 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: Elkaim SC DCJ Decision: Damages assessed at $1,768,833.20. Final orders subject to adjustments for contributory negligence, Section 83 payments and funds management. Catchwords: Assessment of damages, onset of psychotic condition, economic loss, care Legislation Cited: Motor Accident Compensation Act 1999 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Daniel Kraus by his tutor Zoya Kraus (Plaintiff) Andrew Jason Sartori (First Defendant) Kingmill Pty Limited (Second Defendant) Representation: Counsel: P Khandhar (Plaintiff) J Turnbull SC (Defendants)

Solicitors: Brydens Law Office (Plaintiff) Holman Webb Lawyers (Defendants) File Number(s): 2013/00197898

Judgment 1. The plaintiff was born in 1982. On 28 August 2010 he was a passenger in a motor vehicle involved in a one vehicle accident near Medlow Bath. The vehicle was being driven by a friend of the plaintiff (the first defendant). The vehicle was owned by the second defendant. 2. The plaintiff was so seriously injured that he required a tutor to pursue his claim. He blamed his injuries on the defendants. They accepted blame and admitted primary liability. However, due to the involvement of alcohol, contributory negligence was involved. The parties were able to 'settle' this aspect. Their agreement was approved by Olsson DCJ. 3. The matter therefore came before me for the assessment of damages. There was little dispute about the nature of the plaintiff's injuries. There was much dispute about the translation of the injuries into damages. The primary areas of disagreement were economic loss and future care. 4. The assessment of damages is governed by the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (the "MACA"). The plaintiff exceeded the threshold set by Section 131 and is therefore entitled to non-economic loss. An early indication of the severity of the plaintiff's injuries was the parties' respective statement of the level of non-economic loss. The plaintiff said $400,000. The defendant said $300,000. This level of non-economic loss is an early indicator of the severity of the plaintiff's injuries.