What happened

The plaintiff fell on an uneven footpath outside a grocery shop in 2019, sustaining a finger fracture and other injuries. She already had musculoskeletal conditions and limitations from an earlier fall, and received additional household help from family afterwards. Liability had been established by default judgment, leaving the extent of compensable loss for assessment.

The issues

The damages inquiry under the Civil Liability Act 2002 concerned the additional loss and treatment needs caused by this accident. In particular, the court examined whether projected lifetime treatment and domestic assistance were supported by the evidence and adequately distinguished from pre-existing restrictions.

The court's decision

The court regarded the additional impact as relatively modest but allowed non-economic loss and past and future expenses. Future treatment was allowed as a reduced buffer, while future domestic assistance was refused in light of the unexplained weekly estimate, existing restrictions and the finding that paid help was unlikely to be engaged. Judgment was entered with ordinary costs against the defendant, subject to any further costs order.

Understanding the figures

The historical judgment of AUD 30,750.36 comprised AUD 24,000 for non-economic loss, AUD 5,000 for future treatment and AUD 1,750.36 for past expenses. Non-economic loss was assessed at 20% of a most extreme case; nothing was awarded for future domestic assistance. Costs were separate, and the judgment does not establish net money received.

What this case shows

Establishing liability does not itself establish the amount claimed. The court distinguished medical evidence of functional restriction from a properly supported estimate of care hours, and did not treat a treatment recommendation as proof of recurring expenditure for life.

Why another case may differ

This was a damages assessment after default judgment, rather than a contested determination of the footpath duty or breach. There was no claim for economic loss or past gratuitous domestic assistance, and the future-care ruling rested on this evidence and the plaintiff's existing restrictions and family arrangements. The severity percentage and monetary conversion are historical 2021 figures.

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? →