What happened
On 24 October 2016, the plaintiff, then in Year 11, was a front-seat passenger in a car driven by her twin sister when an involuntary sneeze preceded the car leaving a narrow dirt road and striking a tree. She sustained soft-tissue injuries to her chest, neck and lower back; the chest symptoms resolved, but neck and back pain persisted. She progressed into commerce and law studies and paralegal work, while experiencing restrictions with prolonged sitting or standing, heavy lifting and long working hours.
The issues
The main issue was whether a young claimant who had not yet entered her intended profession had shown a real prospect that reduced earning capacity would produce financial loss, and whether a buffer was preferable to a precise weekly calculation. The court also considered future paid domestic help, future treatment and the accident-related component of chiropractic expenses despite some pre-accident attendance.
The court's decision
The court accepted the plaintiff’s evidence and the more cautious medical opinions, finding that pain and physical restrictions would disadvantage her in obtaining and sustaining productive work in a competitive legal profession. It awarded AUD 150,000 for future economic loss, AUD 10,000 for future domestic assistance, AUD 7,500 for future treatment and AUD 5,027.20 for past treatment, totalling AUD 172,527.20 plus ordinary costs.
Understanding the figures
The judgment total was AUD 172,527.20: AUD 150,000 future economic loss, AUD 10,000 future paid domestic assistance, AUD 7,500 future treatment and AUD 5,027.20 past treatment. The defendant was also ordered to pay ordinary costs unless otherwise ordered.
What this case shows
The case shows that a claimant’s youth, academic success and continued employment do not necessarily defeat future economic loss. Where an exact earnings comparison is unavailable, a buffer may be justified by credible medical restrictions, the likely career path and evidence of a real labour-market disadvantage.
Why another case may differ
This was a quantum-only case because liability had been admitted; it did not decide whether the sneeze itself was negligent or otherwise explain the basis of liability. The AUD 150,000 buffer was an individual assessment based on this plaintiff’s young age, intended legal career and specific restrictions on hours and physical tasks, not a tariff for other claims.
Applying it to your claim
Different facts, evidence or procedures, an appeal, or a change in the law may affect how this decision applies. This is general information, not a report of a case handled by Park & Co Lawyers.
Considering a second opinion? →