What happened

Fanelli was a passenger in his mother's car when another vehicle crossed onto their side of the road in 2015. He had learning difficulties before the accident, but developed anxiety and behavioural problems afterwards. He left school at 14 and began working in the family business.

The issues

The dispute concerned whether the accident, rather than the pre-existing conditions, caused early school leaving and reduced earning capacity. The court also had to value future economic loss for a child without an established adult employment history.

The court's decision

The court accepted the mother's evidence and preferred medical opinions supporting physical and psychiatric injuries. It found that, without the accident, he would probably have completed Year 10, undertaken TAFE training and worked in the family business. Early school leaving exposed him to disadvantage if he later needed work in the open labour market.

Understanding the figures

The historical AUD $97,695.94 judgment comprised $7,695.94 in past expenses, $15,000 for future treatment and a $75,000 future economic-loss buffer. It was not an unrestricted net payment: Medicare repayment, insurer credits and reimbursement to the tutor preceded management of the balance by the NSW Trustee and Guardian until age 18.

What this case shows

Work in a protective family business did not eliminate the risk of future loss outside it. Identifying pre-existing learning difficulties was not enough: evidence was needed to support the claim that they would have produced the same incapacity without the accident.

Why another case may differ

The historical Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 governed damages for the 2015 accident. The threshold for non-economic loss was not met, so no award was available under that head. The buffer reflected this child's particular educational and vocational prospects and their uncertainties.

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? →