What happened
At the time of the 2014 collision, the plaintiff was asleep in a child restraint, and the experts agreed that he had no memory of the accident. Breach was admitted, but reports of later sleep and behavioural changes depended largely on histories given by his mother, who did not give evidence at trial.
The issues
The questions were whether the child had suffered legally recognised mental harm and, if so, whether it was causally connected to the collision. The court considered the mental-harm provisions of the Civil Liability Act 2002 alongside the accident-related requirements of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999.
The court's decision
Accepting the child psychiatrist's reasoning, the court found no accident-related impairment of mental condition or recognised psychiatric illness. Any behavioural difficulties were attributed to family interactions developing over time. Judgment covered only proved GP expenses for post-accident checks, and costs were reserved.
Understanding the figures
The actual historical judgment was AUD 84.60 for GP consultations recorded as bulk billed to Medicare. The much larger future-treatment claim was not awarded, and this judgment did not finally determine costs.
What this case shows
Family observations of changed behaviour after an accident require a sound evidentiary bridge to compensable mental harm. Here, the foundations of the expert opinions, the validity of the diagnosis and the distinction between the collision and later circumstances determined the narrow recovery.
Why another case may differ
The decision does not establish a general rule that infants without a memory of an accident cannot recover. Its result rests on this evidence, diagnosis and the legislation applicable to a 2014 accident; several statutory observations were alternative findings following the finding of no mental harm.
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? →