Burnett v Trans Pacific Investment Corporation Pty Ltd & Anor [1992] QSC 205

-~·; J%6Cl~ .,,..,~ . TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS "Sc9o/Cl..DS State Reporting Bureau, 4th Floor, The Law Courts, George Street, BRJSBANE. 0. 4000 TeL (07) 227.4360 (Copyright in this trcnscript is vested in the Crown. Copies thereof must not be made or sold without the written authority of the Director, State Reporting Bureau.) SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CIVIL JURISDICTION c=! MACROSSAN CJ No 130 of 1989 BRETT JAMES BURNETT cl and TRANS PACIFIC INVESTMENT CORPORATION PTY LTD and RAYMOND YEONAN CAIRNS • I DATE 29/5/1992 JUDGMENT 1 ---------·REVISED COPIES ISSUED I• Dat:tat~ept'~g~~ Plaintiff 1st Defendant 2nd Defendant -- 1 of 17 -- 290592 D.2 ~, I i·. I , '. ' HIS HONOUR: The plaintiff claiming damages was a deck hand on a vessel, the "Silvery Moon", owned by the first defendant. The second defendant, one Yeonan, was a passenger and the only passenger on that vessel on the day of the accident. The 1 0 10 20 second defendant has not been served with process and there is no continuing claim against him. Apart from the plaintiff, there was another young deck hand, Petrack, on the vessel and the skipper.was a man York who was a director of the first .... , ~ . defendant company. In brief, on the day of the accident, 18 October 1987, in the 'vicinity of Lizard Island, the vessel was reversing to 20 0 • retrieve a water polo ball which belonged to Yeonan and which ~~ . " :.\_.' 40 50 I . had, just before the accident, fallen from the vessel into the ·water. To retrieve this water polo ball, the rear opening door at deck level, the transom, was opened and the plaintiff , was holding a broom in the vicinity of the open door intending to retrieve the ball. The engine was moving slowly rearward in reverse gear. Yeonan, stupidly, pushed the plaintiff, apparently as a joke, so that he fell into the water and his left foot was lacerated by the propeller screws. The plaintiff was born on 26 March 1964 and had worked at a number of jobs, none of them particularly skilled. He had, for a time, worked as a deck hand, that is he had experience in that occupation. Special damages in the case have been agreed at $39,562.07. That sum, as is further agreed, will not bear interest. Past and future domestic care, a Griffiths 60 I V. ~-~--· Kerkemeyer award, has been agreed at $5,000. Again it is I 2 30 (~ 40 (~ 50 60 -- 2 of 17 -- 290592 D.2 accepted that there will be no further, interest on that sum.l 1" , After the plaintiff suffered his injury, he was transported to • nearby Lizard Island. A number of the events, as the 10 ·plaintiff contends they were, are set out in Exhibit 26, his i quantum statement. This is an outline of those matters: the i plaintiff was transported by plane to the Calvary Hospital in Cairns and he was an inpatient ·then from the date of admission up to 2 November 1987, although there may have been a period 20 of discharge in the middle of that period. In fact, it seems c· that he was readmitted on 22 October 1987. On the 27th of that month, a skin.graft was carried out ~ith the left thi~h c ! being the donor site. At this period of his recuperative history, the plaintiff was thereafter on crutches for some 10 20 four months. Daily dressings of his wounded foot were necessary 30 for the infection which had set in. He needed nursing assistance through to late February of 1988. The plaintiff was then readmitted to hospital in April of 1988 for further surgery C· involving a graft being taken from his right thigh. He was discharged on 20 April 1988 and his necessary home care continued. He was on crutches then through to October of the c same year. In November of 1989, it was necessary for the plaintiff to undergo further surgery and a further skin graft was taken from his thigh. He was discharged in December of so 1989. He was obliged to use crutches again and there was necessary further treatment, the details of which have been either covered in the oral evidence or are contained in the quantum statement. The plaintiff unfortunately was obliged . - .._ Ionce again thereafter to undergo surgery for ~---____§Q____ __r~as in_Ssn~tember of 19 9 0 . on thi=s'---'o"'-'c=-c=-a=s=i-=o-=n'-L,____.gJ-'r=-a=f-=t=s--'--w:.C:ec-=r:_:e=--t=a.:..::k=e=n"----'. Govl. Pr intf'', Old. his foot. This I: 3 \ 40 50 60 -- 3 of 17 -- 290592 D.2 from forearm and right thigh: There is no ~doubt that the pain • and discomfort would have been severe and the level of necessary care for the plaintiff, fluctuating of course at : times;· would have been extensive. 1(j i 20 The plaintiff had gone to school only to the age of 15. He had been settled in Cairns for sometime before the accident. He had worked as a deck hand from time to time between Ji9,nUary Of 1981·and April of 1987; Between·April of 1987 and September of that year, he worked as a delivery driver; then in October of 1987 ·he returned to work as a deck hand. Speaking of his present situatfon, the plaintiff claims that he needs to rest· 10 20 ~o i his foot· and e-levate· l:t from time to time and that standing or (~) walking on it for any significant period causes pain and swelling. He says he cannot run and that he cart' t do any heavy work;· He has had some psychiatric difficulties at different times si~ce the accident. He is left with scarring as a result of- ·his wound and the subsequent operative treatment 1 which I note. He says he is ·embarrassed by this and a I 40 I podiatrist must give him· attention from time to time to deal I lwith callouses that form on his foot. He is I out occ\.ipations which he previously favoured not able to carry of scuba diving I1 and water skiihg~ He says that although he has largely l recoveied from his mental sttess distu~bances, h~ 50 I has ··grave ·trouble on a boat.· He suggests that he cannot deal Iwith' thi"s feeling of alarm which overtakes him on boats and I I clai~s accordingly th~t·he caririot work as~ deck hand in the I future. He'has to take painkillers on a fairly regular basis, I although ·he doesn't ~like this necessity:· He also has to take ____ 60 I Ql_eeping_:__tabiets ·and "is obliged to use special footwear and ~ Go-.·\ P••nler. Old I Ii I 4 30 C) 40 CJ 50 60 -- 4 of 17 -- 290592 D.2 devices to assist his injured-foot. Before the injury which is the subject of the present proceedings, he did suffer some lower back. strain and he also 10 i had an injury to his left knee which required surgery. i ! Dr Rigano, a psychiatrist, supports his, claim, saying that it ! is unlikely that he will.return to an occupation on vessels~ Dr Meibusch, in Exhibit 11, has provided an orthopaedic opinion which I find of assistance. That expert says that.the 20 plaintiff suffers from minimum_restriction of movement, but.he (1 is unlikely to develop degenerative changes in the future. He '--· ! has a 15 to 20 per cent disability affecting the whole limb, .. C. / . but some of this, an unspecified amount, is attributable .to the pre-accident left knee condition. The plaintiff, describing the circumstances of the accident more exactly, gave some description of the.vessel. He had been employed on it for eight days immediately preceding 18 October ( 1987. The "Silvery _Moon" was a 63 foot long twin screw ship. c There was a fly bridge, that is an elevated bridge, up over the cabin for the use of the helmsman. There were not only the usual forward controls up on the fly bridge, but there.was a supplementary set(appearing in the photographs tepdered)in the area behind the control position on the,br~dge. These 50 supplementary controls contained gears and.throttles for the two engines with which the vessel was equipped. The forward controls up on the bridge also had a.throttle ~nd gears for each of the engines. At the centre of the stern at deck level, there was a transom door which opened .in.two sections; 10 20 ?J 40 50 60 · th~ top_J2.Q,:rJ:._being g._Q_out one . foot deep. and the . door itself, Go Gc•v\ Pr 1nter, Old 5 -- 5 of 17 -- 10 ~~- ~~---------- ~-=-- 1 : 290592 D. 2 when- opened, being capable of being ··latched back to allow an ! open area. Of course, when the vessel was under way under ' :normal operating conditions, this transom door ~ould not be 1 operi and particularly if the vessel were being reversed at any speed, it· is clear that the transom door would-not be expected to be opem. It was said that from the bottom of the stern down to' the ptopellers·underneath was a distance of about three feet-. ' 10 20 The passenger Yeonan had been playing with· his water polo ball and threw ii in one· particular area and it went eventually 20 0 40 :into the water: He~ was insistent that the master, that is· !York, go back to retrieve the ball. York was initially unwilling to go back to retrieve it, but it seems that Yeonan CJ insisted, so York compl-ied. He turned ·the vessel round, got into 30 -the 'vicinit-y of the ball and backed it towards the ball, that is,·· started to reverse up ·to it. I accept that when the vessel was gettirig close to the ball, York directed his deck hands to open.the door; The door was opened, Petrack-locking Q it back; this is the reartransom door. The plaintiff says, and I·accept, that he then grabbed a broom with a six or seven foot handle to··try and--retrieve this ball bobbing in the water 1 at the back of the vessel. There was no other equipment more suitabie for· the purpose. The plaintiff says he crouched down 40 50 at· the open transom door-with one hand on the door itself. 50 60 Petrack was-with him.- He didn't appreciate that anyone else was there'in the vicinity as-they moved back. He says, and I accept, 'that he·reached out with the broom with the object of pulling the ball back as the boat' got nearer to it at which oint Yeonan, continuing the mischief which he was the author 6 60 -- 6 of 17 -- 290592 D.2 ·of on this day, pushed him in the back into the water saying, "Go for a swim." This of coursewas highly,dangerous since I . the engines were running and the vessel .was still engaged in gear, moving backwards, even though not at a fast rate.. .The 0 danger of course would come from. the proximity .to the turning 10 propellers immediately under.or virtually immediately under the transom door. The.plaintiff,pushed into the water.was. dragged towards the propellers. It seems likely that he was saved from worse injury by the lucky chance that Petrack was 20 able to grab his hand as he fell and then pull him back onto. C: the deck. There is no doubt that the plaintiff was ve.ry. ~eriously injured in the foot and emergency measures had to.be c • taken to stem the loss of blood. currently the plaintiff is living at Millmerran in conditions iwhich appear to. suit him. He has_a farming property available as a sort of grace and favour residence_, it would. seem. . In any event, he pays only $20 a week for. electricity forth~ .. c· privilege of occupying it. He receives, he says, about $662 a fortnight as sickness benefit. Although the plaintiff worked for a period before the accident as .a delivery.driver_and c indeed has subsequently worked as a delivery driver, he claims that he cannot do so. He says_that the strain on his. foot is too great. .He says he feels numbness under. the foot :when he. 50 attempts to use it if, say, a car has manual. controls and.he. needs to use his left foot for the ch1tch and right. for the brake. He says however that if he were able to afford retraining, that is-in a financial position to undertake it, he would be prepared to do so and would do so. 7 ::o - .. "\ .-·-....1 40 50 eo -- 7 of 17 -- ·-----r-- i i 290592 D. 2 10 In fact, ·as I haVe-said; tha plaintiff has 'done delivery work sint~ the ac~ident. He went back td work for two months from the end of October 1988 and worked throUgh to Christmas. He . . worked for ~ concerh called Transdell. He used to deliver items from in town out ·to· a· site with which. Transdell was involVed.· He·stopped that work just before Christmas, not '.. ' . because'of· difficulty which he had, but because they came to a Christm'as ·iayo.ff time.:' He tried to recommence work on 16 January-1989. He does hot appear to have been wise with the '. . . 20 choice of occupat·ion· that he attempted on this occasion because· ·he was· ende.avour.ing to undertake work on roofs for the Housing cornmiss1ori. The work involved bolting down roof 1 10 20 0 sections· and the plaintiff· was· not able to keep this up. This C) is not surprising, it might be said, for someone with the ; . ' i'nj ury he· had. It would have been much more demanding, no 30 '10 so 60 ·doubt,· than his work· as a delivery driver which ·he was ''appar~ntiy' able to undertake satisfactorily enough for the two months up ·to Chri-stmas· of 1988. Prior to the accident, the plaintiff was not a large earner. ' His earnings ·appear in different sources in the material. There are s·oine tax returns which set them out. His earnings appear to be' from· something over $4,000-net in 1980 through various figur·es between $7, 000 and $8, 000 in the years 1982, 19'8'3 and t98.4, then $5,:000 in 1985, $.9, 000 in 1986 and some . . . . ' $11,000 in 1987. In the year 1987, it is: notable that the plaintiff was· unemployed from 14' January for four months through· to M:ay and otherwise in that year his earnings· seemed mainly to come from work as a delivery driver. Govt. Prin1er. Oit1 8 30 CJ 40 50 GO -- 8 of 17 -- > i 290592 D.2 In my opinion, listening to the plaintiff give his evidence, I think that he not only made the most of his disability, but in , fact that he exaggerated it. I am satisfied that he has in fact a substantial working capacity left to him, but he does ,c not presently appear to be motivated to use it. He does seem to be comfortable and satisfied with his pr~sent conditions and the Social Service payment which he receives and perhaps that reduces his motivation to obtain gainful employment. Whatever the precise reason, I conclude that he is not 20 motivated and unreasonably fails to make appropriate.efforts _ c' to obtain suitable employment. Not_ only we_re the plaintiff'$ earnings pr~~accident not large, but ±here were gaps in hi$ employment. Had the accident not occurred, I am satisfied that the plaintiff would have continued a relatively easy ~ 0 .earning life and that there would have been gaps in.his work. ~ I am not persuaded that he would have worked consistently as .a deck hand without gaps, that being one of the suggestionsmaqe on his behalf in the course of the case. rhe_plaintiff, I C should add, married in late October of 1989. iO 20 40 40 As part of the plaintiff's case, since negligence was denied c by the defendant, a master mariner, Carter, was called... He had substantial experience with vessels and he advanc.ed the view that it is unsatisfactory to h;ve the door open at_ the 50 rear deck level of a vessel if. it is under .way, particular,l.y so in reverse. -The danger is that a person. could fall in with 1 obvious consequences should that occur. If the vessel is underway in reverse gear with the door open, the situation .is even more dangerous. Suction from the propellers would tend _ _@-tO _d~:~g"'"'~~~:~ object in the water, such as a person, under I ! 9 50 eo -- 9 of 17 -- - ·----=-, --------- - I (J 20 1 290592 D.2 towards the screws. Carter said that when marlin are . retrieved, if, say, the boat is being used for fishing, the · engine may still be running when the fish are brought on board, but the vessel would not be in gear. I was persuaded •. . of the sense of Carter's views. The skipper on the day, York, gave evidence as part of the defendant's case. He says that as the vessel was being reversed ba.ck in the near vicinity of the ball, it would have been-going about half a knot or a little more at some 750 to 800 revs. per minute in idle. York, although he didn't precisely· rememb-er it,.· accepted that he directed the plaintiff and/or the other deck hand to open the door and I find that • this is so. York accepted th~t he could have reversed back ~ 0 , and cut the ·motors and that if they missed the ball on the first attempt thereafter, it might have washed around the boat or, alternatively, a further attempt could have been made to retrieve· it-. ·York said that what they were doing on the day Ii i· - 1· ! 10 20 0 : (J 30 itself is not something· that they would normally do. York was C) --10 50 _:~_-"'-'-! . I. . at the rear pa~~ of the flying bridge at the time 6f the operation which I am now describing. York conceded that he knew they shouldn't be doing what they were doing in the first ' . place, as he put it, ~e~ause the floating ball was very ·difficul-t to retrieve without a scoop. He saw Yeonan grab at the plaintiff and saw the plaintiff go into the water. York's description· of hfs ·reaction then was that he panicked. The rear ·controls which he· was near are.· those that he doesn It norma'lly use wi'thout, it seemed to be, preparing himself meritally to use them. In other words, he appeared to suggest that he·. was more at ·home with the forward controls and 1 seeing(:n>l'\ P~rnler, Q!d 10 40 ·~ 50 (·0 -- 10 of 17 -- c· c C' 290592 D.2 the plaintiff in the water, he turned and tried to run to them. Unfortunately, when he got to these forward controls, he made a further error and instead of managing to throw the vessel out of gear, which he should have done and intended to ;u do, he hit the propellers, increasing their speed up from 20 -40 idle. I should add before going on to further findings that as a further part of the defendant's case, another skipper, Dallman, was called to give evidence. He was more inclined to suggest that a ball could not be picked up in any other way than that which was attempted on the day in question. If there were of course substantial risks in trying to pick up a _ball in this manner, then it should be concluded, I would hold, that the ball should have been left and that York should have insisted that it be left. In any event, Dallman was disposed to say that in recovering fish over the stern, it is not necessary to reverse with the transom door open, but there might be one moto:r on and one off in the course of man~euvring the vessel into an appropriate position to bring fish on . .. - . , .. board. I was more assisted by th~ evidence of the plaipt~ff, C Carter and York in most of what York said, although some of 50 1 York's evidence was not entirely consistent with the extracts I that I have already given. I think there were, accordingly, the dangers involved in the operation which the p~aintiff's case contended for and there were e!rors in the mode of recovery undertaken which again the plaintiff's case contended ~~I for. l find, on the probabilities, that the plaintiff would have been injure~ and again probably injured as extensive~x _ I ______ 60 t for : 6:l"''"'=~=ct ap.Qears, even if York had not made the additional I I 11 10 ! 20 ?0 : 40 50 -- 11 of 17 -- /. . 290592 D. 2 I error with t~e-~hrbttles increasiny the speed. His action with the throttles merely made·it even·more 'likely that the ~injury would·occur'and more likely-that the injury would be as extensive as·it was. Accordinglx, even though the plaintiff's counsel applied for leave to amend the statement of claim by adding a new paragraph 7(-e), and I have allowed it, in·my opinion, the conclusion wh·ich I will now proceed further to express will 20 not depend upon it. It is true that the push which Yeonan iO 20 rather stupidly gave to the plaintiff was not a predictable () event, but T- would conclude that there was a risk of someone on ·the vessel and, in particular, a crew member going into the ·water in the operation which was being undertaken. That was a -., . risk which operated anyhow apart from the intervention of -10 Yeonan.· Any liability which-should be held to apply because of the· presence of this· risk would not be relieved because of an unpredictable supervening event because that event merely advanced the operation of the risk factor which was inherent in the enterprise- ·and did so·· only by a brief· moment of· time. The risk ~ould have been at its highest as the plaintiff () 30 () 40 strained with a broom, an inappropriate retrieving device, out () over the stern of the vessel above the rotating screws. 50 I find that there was negligence in"York's operation of the 60 ship in; accordance ·with· particulars B, C· and D of paragraph 7 of the Statement of -Claim; I find that the accident was caused by the master' s· actions; I find that there was a foreseeable risk 6f inj~ty·through one of the crew being projected into the water fr'om the· open doorway in the strain of the recovery Govt. P1mter, Old 12 50 -- 12 of 17 -- 10 20 c: ?0 c 40 I ;290592 D.2 i operation, itself a tricky manoeuv~e; I find that the . . causation for which the defendant is i~sponsible was not broken by the push which.Yeonan administered; I find that the . . . recovery operation would, in any event, have.been increasingly dangerous as the plaintiff tried to fish to recover the ball with the. broom, holding i.t by the .long six or seven foot handle; I find that the risk of injury was foreseeable. and, in . '. . . short, that whether or not Yeonan was a cause or contributing . . cause of the event, the negligence _of the defendant caused the accident. The risk involved could have. been removed by cutting the motors, even if this meant that retrieval might have been~a. little more difficult as York, for example, appeared. to suggest. I am persuaded that that's what. should have been done, even if there were added difficulty in the retrieving operation. Of course, if it were really difficult. to retrieve the ball,. then attempts should not have been. made to retrieve it at all, certainly not in a mode that was dangerous .. The engine should have been cut before the retrieval was attempted ~ ~ . . by leaning out or projecting. out a broom fro~ the rea~ of the C boat. I turn to the assessment of damages. For pain and suffering 50 and loss of amenities., it should be stated by way: of summary that the plaintiff has had a_ very difficul:t time.wJth surgical J treatment. There is- certainly. a dea,l of continuing. inconvenience and interference with the . arneni.ti.es of" life:; he has suffered cosmetic damage; there has been some.mental upset --=-G-"-o-+_an4J have. already referred to it. Even. though there . is a _ Gov1 Pt inter. Old 13 iO 20 :o 40 50 eo -- 13 of 17 -- 290592 D.2 relatively modest percentage disaL~lity as Dr Meibusch refers to.it; and·r accept·his estim~te, there is nevertheless a more substantial-element of damage under this head than might otherwise be attributable to a percentage leg disability of no 10 more than 15 per cent. I find an amount of $45,000 under this heading: · :5'or t'he purposes· of inte.rest, it is appropriate to notionally allocate two-thirds of that figure for the period 20 pre-trial· and I allow interest on that sum, that is two-thirds of $45, 000, ·at the rate· of two per cent from the date of inj~iy to the date of judgment. Past economic loss is hot a.straightforward·matter in its assessment.· . It is hard to' make an appropriate allowance for : someone·· in the earning position and earning circumstances of :.c; , the plaintiff. Counsel for the defendant suggested that I shoulu regard two years as broadly :lost under this heading, that is past economic ·loss', saying that that could be regarded as the total effect of the accident, but for the remainder of the period froin accident to trial, there has been some 40 ' disturbance of· earning· capacity, even compared with the ~T -- , I ! 10 20 0 () 30 0 pre-tri"al earning capacity·and earning performance which had their.limitations. I accordingly think that perhaps the figure Q which defendant' s· coun.sei suggests does not do full justice, I although: I· ~il:l take a broad rate and I· think that an exact 50 . calculation is not possible. Looking· at· the modest rate of the plaintiff's earnings in the spread of· years up to the accident', I am persuaded that the calculation must be made on a ~odest basis. I don't accept that he would, if the accident h~d ·not.occurred,·be employed without break as a deck hand at 60 award rates or at 'some· higber capacit . · The ·picture really is -"'-"----t--=:..:. GovL F'nntE:r, Qlci 14 50 60 -- 14 of 17 -- 290592 D.2 one of gaps in the plaintiff's em~~oyment and of low : motiva~ion, as I find. As I say, I will take a broad figure ·and do not find it possible to calculate by applying a ,periodic wage rate. i In 1987, as I have already said, I note that the plaintiff was I i unemployed for four months and indeed, in that year, a lot o.f his earnings came from a delivery job. This again is a feature which makes it inappropriate to look exclusively at \ 20 ; deck band's wages. He seems not to have averaged much over c=· :about $130 a week net in that period in 1987. Under this :heading, I allow the sum of $25,000. It was agreed.that from :the assessment. I made of this item pre-trial, there should be c= : deducted some $49, 608 paid by the Workers.' Compensation Board to arrive at a net figure for interest purposes. This would 1 produce a minus sum, as I. see it, and. there fore there will be · no interest allowed on pre-trial earning loss~ : Exhibit 2 6, at page 18, shows a figure which .was agreed ~for 'I I I 20 30 c= 40 specials, but it was agreed there was to be no further interest on' 40 it. This is the sum of $39,562.07. I now ~deal with_ future c=~ I economic loss-; I am persuaded that the plaintiff has, as I i have already indicated, not applied himself in reasonable I I fashion to the matter of earning. I am persuaded that he 50 I finds himself comfortable on the amount paid for Social I Services with low outgoings. in his country accommodation. .He i J appears, I might add, fit, healthy and~tanned; appearance is I not everything, but perhaps it is something. I have already j said I accept Dr Meibusch' s assessment and there is need for I ~11\~ "'~'e'~.:~~: ~because in the. percentage assessment which that ! 15I 50 GO -- 15 of 17 -- - ------ ---;,- --- 290592 D.2 person provides, ·.some unspecified --leductiDn must be allowed :for pr:e~existing knee defect. :In the: period after the accident, the· plaintiff worked for two 10 'months in a :parcel delivery job as I have already set out and • he con-tinued this until the Christmas of the year in question iwhen t-he job appeared to be lost. ~He of course took on an unsuitable-- j:ob subsequently in attempting- to do bolting work on-.roe-fs-,- ·but -that~ is not a relevant- indicator- of his 20 ! capacity. - I am sa-tisfied he has very substantial earning capacity -left- which ·he chooses not to apply. -w For future economic loss, - for the- reduction which does e·xist . in his earning capacity over the years ahead, again I find myself obliged; -in a practical-sense, to adopt a global , approach and- I-· allow the . figure of - $7 5, 0 0 0. · It- was agreed that, as-I have-already indicated, past and future value of gratuitous services to include interest should be assessed at $5,000. I total these figures, which I have set out, at $184,562.07 with interest on two-thirds of $45,000 at two per cent. From this figure which I have just stated by way of : ·lJ ·•I j ... ~ 20 0 () 40 total, I am obliged to deduct, I believe, the amount shown in :~ the letter from the Wor:-::=-~s' Compensation Board, Exhibit 15, $77,046.68. This would then allow a balance of $107,515.39, 5o on my calculations, plus interest above as indicated and there 50 will be judgment for the plaintiff for this amount. __ 60 HIS HONOUR: In assessing the future economic loss at $75,000 GO Govt. F1 tnter. Olrl. 16 -- 16 of 17 -- ( 290592 D.2 as I have done, providing a global figure and announcing it, I did not specifically take into account a figure for future podiatry expenses. This is now drawn to my attention. A claim is made on the basis of $20 a week for a future of 46 10 years, applying the usual percentage table, giving $18,669. 10 Some discount for contingencies should be applied to this figure even if the amount of the claim, that is. $20, were to be accepted as sufficiently accurate for this purpose. I shall allow a discounted rounded figure of $15,000 under this 20 !head. That means that the total of $184,562.07, which I 20 announced for the total assessment, should be corrected to $199,562.07 and the further consequence is that the figure for judgment, exclusive of interest, will become $122,515.39. c 30 There will be judgment for the plaintiff for that sum. The 30 plaintiff shall have an order that the first defendant pay his costs to be taxed on the District Court scale as for a judgment in excess of $50,000, including reserved costs, ~f c any. -10 40 50 50 60 60 Govt. Printer. Qld. 17 -- 17 of 17 --