Campbell v F J Walker Ltd [1990] QSC 82

10 c/ 20. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CIVIL JURISDICTION BEFORE MR. JUSTICE KNEIPP TOWNSVILLE, 3 APRIL 1990 (Copyright in this transcript is vested in the Crown. Copies thereof must not be made or sold without the written authority of the Chief Court Reporter,Court Reporting Bureau.) BETWEEN: CHARLES BERNARD CAMPBELL -and- F.J. WALKER LTD. Plaintiff Defendant C JUDGMENT HIS HONOUR: The plaintiff was born on 23 September 1943 and he was injured on 25 March 1986. He left school at QC(_ 10 20 30 30 c40 ':iO r ,l) the age of 13 years and has spent all his working life as a meatworker. At the time of the accident he was employed by the defendant in its works at Townsville as a boner. His position was permanent. The plaintiff is illiterate and intellectually he can only be described as very dull. As a result of the accident the plaintiff sustained injuries to the cervical spine and lumbar spine. He has permanent residual disabilities in those areas. I am satisfied, by reference to the evidence of Doctors Douglas, Lewis and Watson, that he is not employable in any active work and, given his illiteracy and intellectual deficits, I am satisfied that he is not employable in other fields. He mdy earn a few dollars occasionally from casual work but the returns will not be of any significance. --·· ----·---·-··•·-·--·-- ---- l 40 50 :,d -- 1 of 4 -- II I: c:: C 10 Before turning to assessments of damages under the various heads, there are two matters which I should mention. The first is that work in the meatworks at Townsville is of course seasonal, so that the plaintiff was employed only for part of each year. During the off-seasons he worked from time to time as a plumber's assistant but on the material it is difficult to assess how much time, on the average, he would have spent in each year in that type of work. The second matter is that calculations have been put before me in relation to past losses and future losses of income on the basis that the plaintiff would have been employed in the works in each season, that he would have spent 11 weeks in each off-season as a plumber's assistant, and that he would have been unemployed for the balance of the year._ _I thi_nk that the ~s_timat.e pf_ 1.1 :weeks in each_ 30 year as a plumber's assistant might be optimistic but, on the other hand, there is no allowance in the calculations for unemployment benefits which t0e plaintiff would have received during periods when he was not in work. The actual amount claimed for past loss is $58,800. I think there should be some discount and I allow $55,000. So far as the future is concerned, a significant matter is that the plaintiff suffers from a pre-accident disability of the thoracic spine, which was caused by disease in his youth. There is medical evidence, which I accept, that this disability would have resulted in his probably having to give up heavy work in his 5Os, say at about the age of 55 years. However, it would seem that he would have been capable of light work after he had to give up heavy work. [{e i.s now -16 years oE age. I take a multi.plier of 10 years, -----·--·--· ----··---·---- -------·-·-·---------·------·--- ·r·u r n""1 "1't"( ,;,,, -, 10 20 30 40 50 -- 2 of 4 -- I ii, ,, '-'·I the result being $125,000. I allow $2,700 for the present value of future losses of superannuation. To turn to what might be called special damages, there is an item relating to benefits provided by Medicare of $470, and an item in relation to matters provided by the 10 Commonwealth Rehabilitation Department of $1,710. There are payments by the Workers' Compensation Board amounting to a total of $2,252.05. 'l'here is a Fox & Wood claim amounting to $3,830.84. So far as general damages are concerned, the C20 plaintiff's losses of amenities are dealt with in his statement, which is in evidence, and I need not repeat what is contained there. I allow $40,000. I turn to the matter of interest and deal first with the interest on the award- for- loss of income to -the present-. 30 I do not allow anything to 30 June 1987, which is the date on which payments of workers' compensation ceased. So far as the balance of the period is concerned, the plaintiff received unemployment benefits from 17 December 1987 to the date of the trial. Taking those into account, on the losses from 30 June 1987 I allow interest in the sum of $4,000, which is a fairly arbitrary calculation. On $10,000, being part of the $40,000, I allow $2,400. The total of the interest, then, is $6,400. ·,o The various items then are: past loss of income $55,000; future loss of income $125,000; future loss of superannuation $2,700; Medicare $470; Commonwealth Rehabilitation $1,710; Workers Compensation Board $2,252.05; Fox & Wood $3,830.84; general damages $40,000; and interest $6,400. The total of those it~ms I calculate to be ---------------------------- ---·-------- 3 10 20 30 40 50 (,d -- 3 of 4 -- i i ! '~ '· 10 C 30 'jO $237,362.89. The Workers Compensation Board has a charge amounting to $21,046.32. The final amount is $216,316.57. I give judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant for the sum of $216,316.57 with costs to be taxed. r,u -· . -· - . . ····---··---·---····-·----------- ----------------- ·l 10 20 30 40 50 CU -- 4 of 4 --