What happened
On 4 June 2022, while the plaintiff was riding along a road at Horsley Park, a dog alleged to be owned by the defendant ran onto the roadway and collided with the motorcycle. He sustained an intra-articular radial-head fracture and injuries to both knees, requiring surgery the next day to insert a screw in the elbow and clean and close the right-knee wound. He returned to the same employer but could not continue the walking- and stair-intensive warehouse-manager role, moving into a more sedentary systems and inventory position created within the business.
The issues
Liability had already been determined by default, so the hearing was confined to unliquidated damages. The Court had to assess non-economic loss from continuing pain, scarring and reduced activity; future treatment and commercial domestic assistance; and whether retained wages still left a compensable loss of earning capacity through reduced labour-market mobility, promotion prospects and possible early retirement.
The court's decision
The Court assessed non-economic loss at 30% of a most extreme case, producing $175,000. It added past and future treatment expenses, future domestic assistance and car washing, past wage and superannuation loss, and a $100,000 future-economic-loss buffer despite unchanged current wages, reflecting reduced advancement prospects and the medical opinion about possible early retirement. Judgment was entered for $460,998.99 plus costs.
Understanding the figures
The historical AUD judgment was $460,998.99. Principal components were $175,000 non-economic loss, $16,787.43 past treatment expenses, $42,345 future treatment expenses, $111,106.56 future domestic assistance and car washing, $14,198 past wage loss, $1,562 past superannuation loss and a $100,000 future-economic-loss buffer. The coversheet instead prints $460,988.99, but [68], the operative orders after [74] and the sum of the components agree on $460,998.99.
What this case shows
The decision illustrates that unchanged current wages do not necessarily eliminate earning-capacity loss where the worker depends on a less transferable accommodated role and faces real risks to advancement, open-market employment and working life. It also shows that, even after default judgment, the Court independently scrutinises the evidence and amount of each damages component.
Why another case may differ
The defendant did not appear, liability was already established by default, and the judgment is an assessment of damages rather than a contested liability ruling. Although a motorcycle was involved, the cause and statutory claim concerned a dog attack under companion-animal legislation, not a statutory motor-accident claim; the $460,998.99 excludes the separate costs order and does not prove net receipt.
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? →