PLAINTIFF SEEKS FOR DAMAGES FOR INJURIES OBTAINED DUE TO CAR COLLISSION CAUSED BY THE DEFENDANT
Amin v Vidal [2020] ACTSC 227 (29 October 2020)
This case involves a plaintiff seeking for damages for injuries obtained in a motor vehicle accident caused by the defendant.
Facts:
The plaintiff was seated in the driver’s seat of his Mercedes Benz E250 coupe vehicle (the vehicle). He had stopped the vehicle at the traffic lights on Barry Drive in one of the westbound lanes. Mr. Ulises Vidal (the first defendant) was driving a Nissan ute in the same direction and in the same lane, behind the plaintiff’s vehicle. It appears the collision occurred when, through inattention, the first defendant applied the brakes of his vehicle too late to avoid his vehicle colliding with the rear of the plaintiff’s stationary vehicle.
The plaintiff claims to have suffered back, neck and shoulder pain and subsequent psychological injury as a result of the accident. He seeks damages, claiming, amongst other things, that his injuries have made him unable to complete full time or overtime hours in his job as a security guard.
The plaintiff accepted that before the accident, he had experienced pain of a similar nature to that which he alleged he felt following the accident. He said there had been a couple of episodes when he had experienced a sore back, including once when he had been assisting to lift his father-in-law, who was a very large man and required assistance to be moved.
Issue: Did the collision cause any injuries and any disabilities claimed by the plaintiff which entitles him to be awarded with damages?
Law:
- Causation is to be determined by reference to s 45 of the Civil Law Wrongs Act 2002. That is, in establishing factual causation, the plaintiff must prove that the accident was a necessary condition of his injury.
Analysis:
The court finds that the accident has aggravated a pre-existing degenerative condition in the cervical spine, which was asymptomatic as at June 2018, along with an aggravation of lumbar spondylosis, which has possibly precipitated a pain syndrome. This is the common thread of the medical evidence of the doctors presented in court. The medical evidence did not establish that in the absence of the accident, degenerative processes in the plaintiff’s cervical spine would have led to the same pain and disabilities as those reported by the plaintiff following the accident.
Having accepted the accuracy of the plaintiff’s reporting of neck and back pain, which was not present immediately before the accident, and the history of his condition since that time, and taking into account both that the impact of the collision may have been greater due to extra weight carried by the first defendant’s vehicle and that the plaintiff had an underlying vulnerability, the court considers it more likely than not that his current condition, including shoulder pain, was caused by the accident, in the sense that the accident was a necessary condition of the happening of the injury (s 45 of the Act).
Conclusion: The defendant is entitled to damages of $224,043.31
