Joan Rosemary Goodrum v Betty Irene Noakes [1991] ACTSC 38 (8 July 1991)

SUPREME COURT OF THE ACT

JOAN ROSEMARY GOODRUM v. BETTY IRENE NOAKES
S.C. No. 764 of 1989
Damages

COURT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Master A. Hogan(1)

CATCHWORDS

Damages - Assessment - Personal injury - Motor vehicle accident - Whiplash - Moderate - Recovery - No issue of principle.

HEARING

CANBERRA
8:7:1991

Counsel for the Plaintiff: Mr R. Mildren

Instructing solicitors: Messrs Gary Robb and Associates

Counsel for the Defendant: Mr Crittle

Instructing solicitors: Messrs Crossin Power Haslem

ORDER

There be judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $18,433.77.

DECISION

This is the assessment of damages for personal injury sustained by the plaintiff in a motor vehicle accident on 15 June 1989.

2. The plaintiff was born in 1928 and was employed at the Australian National University as an illustrator.

3. On 15 June 1989 she was driving her car in Barry Drive from the University towards Northbourne Avenue. She was wearing a seat belt. The traffic conditions required her to stop just before reaching the intersection.

4. A following vehicle then collided heavily with the rear of her car. She was thrown about and shocked, but she did not strike any part of the car and did not lose consciousness.

5. An ambulance took her to Royal Canberra Hospital. On the way she felt pain in her neck and the ambulance officers placed a soft collar to support her neck. She was wheeled into the casualty section in a wheel chair.

6. On examination, her range of neck movement was restricted. X-rays did not reveal any abnormality. The diagnosis was one of cervical ligamentous tear. A soft neck brace was applied and analgesics prescribed. She was advised to have physiotherapy.

7. After about five hours at the hospital, she was driven home by her daughter-in-law and her son. She went to bed and did not go to work over the next two days.

8. On 23 June 1989, she consulted her general practitioner, Dr Doumani. He found a 20% limitation of extension and flexion to the right of the neck. There was a 10% limitation of flexion to the left. He referred her for physiotherapy.

9. She underwent massage and traction at the hands of the physiotherapist over five visits.

10. On 10 July 1989, Dr Doumani perceived considerable improvement. There was further improvement by 21 July. By then, she was getting an occasional headache at the back of her head on the right hand side. There was also a little pain down into the right side of the neck. There was minimal limitation of movement.

11. In evidence, she stated that the continuous neck pain lasted about a month. She returned to work after two and a half days and was on light duties for about two weeks. For the rest of the year she was conscious of needing to be careful when bending over a drawing board, when lifting or carrying weights or when kneading bread. She was not able to drive for a month.

12. At Christmas time she experienced considerable tension because her regular employment came to an end and the tension brought on her neck pain.

13. She paid a Mr Scott Watson $100.00 to do some gardening work for her and bought a lightweight waist bag to wear when bushwalking to ease the strain on her neck.

14. She had previously suffered injury to her neck in 1978 but that incident had no effect that I can perceive on the consequences of this accident.

15. Her solicitors referred her for assessment by Dr White, neurologist, in June 1990. On examination, there was minor restriction of the neck and no tenderness or muscle spasms.

16. Dr Colin Andrews saw her for the defendant in September 1990. She had resumed bushwalking. There was mild restriction of neck movement. He and Dr White agreed that there had been minor to moderate whiplash with aggravation of underlying long standing cervical spondylosis. It had been gradually settling, no further treatment was required and eventually the situation would resolve with only minimal disability.

17. That conclusion summarises my own view of the evidence.

18. For her pain and suffering I award $16,000.00 of which only $1,000.00 would relate to the future. I award $1,230.00 interest on the past component of that amount.

19. The wage loss is agreed at $237.99. The medical expenses were agreed at $798.78. I allow the $100.00 claimed for the gardening and the $67.00 for the waist bag.

20. The total award is made up as follows:-
Pain and suffering $16,000.00

Interest 1,230.00
Loss of wages 237.99
Medical expenses 798.78
Gardening 100.00
Waist bag 67.00
Total $18,433.77

I direct the entry of judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $18,433.77.