What happened
The plaintiff collided with the defendant's vehicle while turning left on a green signal in February 2016. The judge accepted his account and evidence from an independent witness who had viewed CCTV, finding that the defendant had driven through a red light. Medical records and scans made before a second collision that October already documented neck and back problems and substantial work limitations.
The issues
Besides liability and contributory negligence, the Court had to decide whether continuing symptoms and earnings loss were attributable to the first crash or should be divided between the accidents. Future loss also required an assessment of a fragmented work history and the carpentry apprenticeship discussed before the first collision. The reasons applied s 5D of the Civil Liability Act 2002 and s 126 of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999.
The court's decision
The judge made no reduction for contributory negligence. Comparing the medical evidence and functioning before and after the second accident, she attributed the continuing work restrictions to the first accident. Judgment was entered for AUD 572,792.39, with the defendant to pay costs, subject to liberty to seek a different costs order.
Understanding the figures
The historical judgment total of AUD 572,792.39 comprises AUD 3,739.50 past expenses, AUD 27,114.58 future expenses, AUD 72,616.00 past economic loss and AUD 469,322.31 future economic loss in the final table. Non-economic loss is marked not applicable. Neither the separate second-accident settlement nor costs should be folded into this figure as a net receipt.
What this case shows
Multiple accidents did not justify an automatic equal division of loss: the intervening records and actual changes in function mattered. Existing restrictions after the first crash and the course of recovery after the second were central to causation. Future earnings were not fixed simply by the plaintiff's employment status, but required assumptions about vocational prospects and residual capacity.
Why another case may differ
The second accident claim settled separately; that settlement was not an additional head of damages in this judgment. The reasons contain differing descriptions of vocational prospects and differing future-loss calculations, so the operative orders and final damages table control the reported result. This was an assessment under the historical legislation applicable to the 2016 accident.
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? →