Veronka Laic v Kenneth Maxwell Randell [1991] ACTSC 61 (15 August 1991)

SUPREME COURT OF THE ACT

VERONKA LAIC v. KENNETH MAXWELL RANDELL
S.C. No. 399/87
Negliglence

COURT

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

CATCHWORDS

Negligence - Damages - Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle Accident - Soft Tissue Injury - Assessment - No Permanent Disability - No Issue of Principle.

HEARING

CANBERRA
15:8:1991

ORDER

There be entry of judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $23,114.00.

DECISION

This is the assessment of damages for personal injury sustained by the plaintiff in a motor vehicle accident on 13 November 1985.

2. The plaintiff is a married woman with three children, who works as a diet maid at the Woden Valley Hospital.

3. On the day of the accident, at about 9.00 pm. she was a front seat passenger in a car being driven by her husband in Jerrabombera Avenue. She was wearing a seat belt. Two of the children were in the rear.

4. A car driven by the defendant overtook in such a manner that there was a collision, which forced the plaintiff's vehicle off the road, where it overturned. It came to rest on its right hand side. She was not knocked out.

5. She escaped from the vehicle through the back door. Her daughter was next to the car. She could not see her son. It was dark. She was terrified for him. After some minutes of searching they heard him crying, and found him in the undergrowth by the side of the road.

6. She had received a severe blow on the head, and bumps and abrasions on her left side, shoulder, arm, hip and leg and her right thigh.

7. She and the children were taken by ambulance to Woden Valley Hospital. An x-ray of the skull did not reveal any abnormalities. After a period of observation she was sent home at about 2 in the morning.

8. She went to bed, but naturally did not sleep well. As well as a headache she developed pain in the neck.

9. The next day she consulted her general practitioner Dr Tan. He reported as follows:
"When I saw her, she was complaining of pain at the back of her

head, in her neck, upper back and anterior chest. On
examination she had the following injuries: -
1. Tenderness and abrasion - posterior scalp (parietal scalp).
2. Pain - back of neck on left side. Over cervical spine at
about the level C4 to C7 vertebrae, slight restriction of neck
movements because of pain.
3. Pain - upper back at about level T1 to T4 vertebrae.
4. Bruises (x 3) - superior aspect of left shoulder
- posterior aspect of left shoulder
- lateral aspect of left shoulder
5. Bruising - below left iliac crest.
6. Bruises (x 2) - lateral aspect of right thigh.
7. Tenderness - over sternum.
In the main, Mrs Laic had sustained soft tissue injuries which
were consistent with the mode of injury as stated by her. She
attended my surgery again on 19.11.85, 18.11.85, 16.1.86 and
28.11.86 because of neck and upper back pain. She was treated
with rest, oral analgesics, anti-inflammatory medications and
physiotherapy.

10. She stayed off work for only one week, but when she returned to work she continued to suffer pain and stiffness, especially headaches and pain in the lower back. She took time off work from time to time.

11. She underwent a number of courses of physiotherapy, but they did not give her much relief.

12. In November 1988 her solicitors referred her to Dr Keiller. She complained to him that she still suffered occasional headaches and sore neck. On examination he found some tenderness in the back muscles, but no other local abnormality.

13. His diagnosis was that she had sustained painful but non-serious soft tissue injury. There were residual, nuisance value symptoms which interfered with her general comfort, but did not cause any measurable disability.

14. She is able to work without restriction. Her third child was born since the accident, with no problems arising. She still gets occasional headaches, stiffness in the neck and an ache in the back.

15. For her pain and suffering, I award $18,000, no significant part of which relates to the future. Interest on that sum amounts to $4,142. Her loss of wages amounted to $100. The out-of-pocket expenses are agreed at $871.

16. The total award is made up as follows:

Pain and Suffering $18,000.00
Interest $ 4,142.00
Loss of Wages $ 100.00
out-of-pocket expenses $ 872.00
$23,114.00

I direct the entry of judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $23,114.00.