Casey v Mannion & Anor [1990] QSC 83

10 c~,20 () (; 30 (; 40 C 50 60 : . I•• ;-•~-•~,',.,;- ,_ ,. ~ •y. . • ·.··J._,!.- IN THE SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CIVIL JURISDICTION ! REVISED COP!.ES .ISSU~[ ICourt Reporting Bureau 1 Date, h I ~. I t?a • No. 3209 of 1989 BEFORE MR. JUSTICE CARTER BRISBANE, 29 MAY 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: LYNDA JANE CASEY -and- BRIAN DAVID MANNION -and- SUNCORP INSURANCE AND FINANCE JUDGMENT, Plaintiff Defendant Defendant by Election HIS HONOUR: I am satisfied that the provisions of s.67 subs.3 of the Public Trustee Act have been complied with. Accordingly, I now give judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant by election for $363,700 with costs to be taxed, in accordance with the draft judgment initialled by me and placed with the papers. -Govt. Printer, Qld. ·- ·... :· 1 10 20 30 40 50 60 -- 1 of 19 -- 10 0 20 -~ (_) 30 0 40 so 60 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CIVIL JURISDICTION BEFORE MR. JUSTICE CARTER BRISBANE, 2 APRIL 1990 No. \ R-~VISED COPIES ISSUED Cou:·t r~.,p::irtng Bureau l!.:.::. )/ 'f I Cj0 (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: LYNDA JANE CASEY -and- BRIAN DAVID MANNION -and- SUNCORP INSURANCE-AND FINANCE JUDGMENT Plaintiff Defendant Defendant by Election HIS HONOUR: At some time late in the afternoon of 26 November 1984 the plaintiff suffered severe personal injuries when she was riding her motar::ycle at the intersection of Kingston Road and Smith Road, Slacks Creek. She was travelling towards the north, or in an inbound direction, when she collided at the intersection with the defendant's Ford Fl00 utility which he was driving on the intersection whilst in the course of turning right from Kingston Road - the main road - into Smith Road. The character of the intersection is shown very clearly in the aerial photograph of itj which is Exhibit 1. The intersection was equipped with traffic lights and their operation through the various phases was explained in the .,,inter, Qld, 1 10 20 30 40 50 60 -- 2 of 19 -- 10 20 30 40 50 60 evidence of Mr. Hennaway, an officer of the Main Roads Department. I will refer to his evidence in the course of ieferring to th~ evidence ot other relevari£ witnesses because it has assisted me very significantly i~ resolving the evid~nce oi confli6ting witnesses, in particular that of Mr. James, an independent witness who gave evidence for the plaintiff, and that of the defendant himself. The plaintiff suffered a serious h~ad injury and other severe injuries, and has no recollection of the cciilisio~. Het' last recollection before the incident is extremely vague and undefined and does not include any mat·ters relevant to this accident. . ·. ·. - The-defendant told me that he was proceeding south in an outbound direction towards the intersection and that he dr6ve intri the right-hand turning lane on Kingston Road intending to turn tight into Smith Road. How~ver, according to him ired turning arrow wai showing against him and he came to a halt at the head of the turning lane and at the p~lnted sto~ bar 6ri the road surface. He remained there stationaiy until the red arrow turned to green. He then moved off slowly and turned right when suddenly he saw a m6torcycl~.a~pro~ching him on the intersection at some speed. ··This vehicle had· passed between two other vehicles facing to the north or inbound - one of which was itself, apparently, intending to turn right intb Noel Street which ' . . gave access to a shopping centre, and the other which was stationary, apparently, in obedience to a red light which was in place whilst· the green arrow was sh·owing for •:~•outbound traffic turning right. He stQpped and the motorcycle continue on its pafh and collided with the front portion of his v~hicle. - ·nter, Qld. 2 ,, 10 0 20 0 30 0 40 50 60 -- 3 of 19 -- ·- /r.·. 10 0 20 0 30 C) C .40 50 From that brief summary, it i.s clear that the defenaant' s ' • • , < • • • case is that he, fhe_ defendant, having first stopped because of the red arrow waited for it to turn green at which time. the plaintiff was 0pp9sed by a red light but that the plaintiff disobeyed it and proceeded through it and onto the intersection and collided with the defendant's vehicle which, at all material times, was legittmately in the course of making its right-hand turn. A review of the defendant's evidence will disclose his insistante that he stopped in obedience to the red arrow; ind~ed, the existence of the red arrow and his c,ompliance with it and the fact that he was at the head of the right-hand turning lane before moving off when it had turned green,· are integral features of the narrative which he insisted in his evidenc~ were true. ~o say that· the witnes~ appear~d to be d~finite and impatient with any suggestion to the contrary is something of an understatement. However, one can have little or n~ confidence in what he said on · oath because Mr. Hennaway, the officer from the Main.Roads Department, told me that the system of lights at the intersection did not at the time provide for a red arrow at all. The evidence of the defendant can be contrasted with the evidence of Mr~ James, an independent witness, who with his wife was also travelling south or outbound in the same direction as the defendant. Mr. and Mrs. James were wholly independent witnesses, There was no suggestion that they knew or were known~ to either the plaintiff or the defendant. Mr. James told me that he was driving his vehicle in the lane next to the right hand turning lane. It was one of two lanes provided for through traffic. As he approached the intersection 10 20 30 40 50 60 60 -Govt. Printer, Qld. 3 -- 4 of 19 -- 10 20 30 '40 50 60 there was a red iight'.. fa:citig all three lanes of outbound traffi-:::' inciuding the :tight-ha'nd' turning .lane. - . rn'. the· right-hand turning lane there were three or' fcn.ir· vehicles stationary and wai t"ing to turn right. There- were a.ls~· three or fo!Jr ve.hicles stationary ahead of him in the lane in which he was travelling and, like hi~, intending to'~ioceed through the interse6tion~ Whilst stationary- he saw a motor cycle approaching at a considerable distance from the intersection. His estimate was about half a mile. ~hilst ·his and the other vehicles, including ~hose in the riijht hand turnirig ·1ane, were all stationary i~ obedience to::the red light, there then showed the green arrow, fOr 'traffic intending to turn right. The vehicles in that lane turned right.and proceeded through the intersection , turning right into.Smith Road. After that traffic had cleared the green- arrow then turned to an amber colour. The evidence of· Mr~- Hennaway ·is that the amber arrow was phas~a.- to show for 'three ·seconds. At some undefined time after the right turn ar'row was showing amber he, Mr. ·James, . ' . - . suddenly heard beside him and, no doubt, at' some distance behind him - Mrs. Jame's said she looked back over her right shoulder~- a loud screechi'ng noise which he described as a "compression skid" made by a vehicle in the right hand - tbrning lahe. · He described the noise as being that being made by a high revving engine of a motor vehicle when the ge~ is changed down suddenly. He said that the vehicle slowed.and then speede·d up. To the observer, Mr. James, he thought: · --c'J Oh · we 11, he's not going to ·make it ·and then he weht for it." In short, Mr. James was descFibing the sequence of the · Qld. 4 10 0 20 0 30 0 0 40 50 60 -- 5 of 19 -- 1 10 20 30 C 50 60 vehic-le 1 .~ movement as, apparently, sbwing and then, apparently accelerating. However~ the _most relevant and important part of Mr. James' eyidence is that it was at some undefined time after the right-:-hand arrow first showed amber that he first heard .the screech of_ the so-called compression skid~ 'J..'his was the= .' d~f_endant's vehicle •. According to Mr. Hennaway, after the·arrow=.was· green 10 it was phased to _tum to .amber and remain srr,_ for-three seconds.-,,_;...;: Of course, at this time other traffic like Mr. and Mrs. James and opposing traffic had a re_d 1 ig_ht _against it. After three seconds· the amber arrow was·not phased to turn to·a red arrow.Rather there' , . . . then showed only the existing red light which remained.on 20 for a further two seconds after the amber arrow was extinguish d. It is obvious that these are only brief intervals of time and Mr. James did not and,I suspect,could not sensibly say_ precisely how long -it was after. the amber ·arrow first showed. that . he heard the screech which he said"~cared"him~ Mr. Hennaway said that after the green arrow was extinguished, 30 turning traffic wa~ given five seconds to clear .the intersecti n - three seconds of amber arrow and two seconds of red light before there was shown a green light for both inbound and outbound traffic. Therefore, on the evidence of Mr. James it is clear that he first heard the screech of the defendantts 40 vehicle in the right-hand turning lane and which was approaching the painted stop bar in that lane at. some time within that interval of five seconds but between the time when the arrow turned to amber and the.light went fr6m red to green to permit that traffic ahead of him in his lane to.proceed through the intersection. He said he saw the defendant's vehicle turn right into the lane for the north-bound or inbound traffic, heard the .c/rash. ,_ of the collision and saw the plaintiff -Govt. Printer, Qld. 5 50 60 -- 6 of 19 -- ,-/ 10 20 30 '40 50 60 thrown from her motorcycle. Mr. James '-,evidence is more consistent with Mr. Hennaway' s evidence. and because it is, •. and because he is entirely independent, I very much prefer his evidence and that of Mrs. James to the .evidence of the defendant whose evidence is essentially inconsistent w1th the evidence of Mr. Hennaway. The latter explained that there is now, but was not at the time, a r~d arrow in the phasing system. The defendant has lived in the area for many years and has daily used the intersection. In my view., those changes indic?te to me that in describing the events of the day in question he was reconstructing or creating a story for the day of the accident which was based on a relevantly false assumption. I am satisfied, and I so-find, that at a time when it was unsafe. to do so, the defendant dr0ve into the intersection and turned right acrdss the path of the oncoming traffic~ I afil;unable to find precisely at what point in relation to the changing of the phases that that happened, except to say that I am satisfied that the defendant was still approaching the intersection after the arrow had turned to amber and that at the time when the arroW'"Was showing amber the defendant's vehicle had not yet reached, or had barely reached, the point on the roadway which was adjacent to where the . . stationary vehicle of Mr. and Mrs. James was standing in its lane. The defendant was, I am satisfied, attempting to turn right at the intersection against the opposing traffic when it was unsafe to do so. His only attempt to justify his course of action was to assert that he at first stopped at a red arrow and that he had only moved off at the first permissible time., namely, with the onset of a green arrow. I have already indicated my~rejection of this evidence. -Govt. Printer, Qld. 6 1 10 0 20 0 30 0 040 50 60 -- 7 of 19 -- 10 20 C\,) 30 50 60 I am of the view that it is more probable than not that by . the time ,. the· .. defendctnt · was 'O;Il . the intersection, the ··green light was available to northbound '' traffib; including the plaintiff and that the collision occurred because the defendant drove on to the intersection 'across the plaintiff's path when it was unsafe to do so. @n examination of Exhibit l.will show that ·a vehicle intending to turn iight must make a rather long and sweeping curve in order to take up its position on the left-hand side of ~mith Road. It ~as whilst the ~efendant was executing that manoeuvre that northbound traffic had the right to proceed. In the course of so doing, the plaintiff collided ~ith the defendant's vehitle ~hich had been-~rought to a sudden halt. I am satisfied that at the time of the collision, the defendant's vehicle was across all or most of fhat traffic l~ne in which the plaintiff was travelling, namely, the lane closest to the centre of Kingston Road, whic6 was for the.use of through traffic. As· to the plaintiff, I am satisfied that she had available to her the right to proceed through the intersection when she did. She had been seen at some.distance back by Mr. James and ·she was then travelling at what he thought to be a pr9per speed; There·is no evidence as.to her preciise speed at or immediately before the time of the collision. I am satisfied that the plaintiff was experienced in riding and controlling the motorcycle. - . The onus of establishing contributory negligence is upon the ~efendant. That cinus has not, in my view, been discharged. I am not satisfied that she proceeded on to the intersection against a Ted li~hi, or that her spedd was excessive in the . ,. ,ovt. Printer, Old. 7.· ·' 10 20 30 40 50 60 -- 8 of 19 -- -·-- ----~-------·----------------------------- circumstances, rather I am of the view that the accident was caused by the default of the defendant in turning right at ~he _intersection across the path of northbound traffic .when., _ it was. unsafe to do so and. tha:i: j:i.ccqrdingly the personal injuries. 10 ~uffered by the pla_intiff· we;i;e'. c~used sole.ly by. the- negligence of th 10 20 30 40 so 60 defendant. I think it is more probable than_ not that by the time the defendant had entered substantially upon the intersection, the light was showing green for both north and southbound traffic, and that the defendant had entered upon the intersection when it was unsafe for him to do so. Therefore, in my view, the collision was solely the fault of the defendant's negligence, as was the damage suffered by the plaintiff. The plaintiff was born on 5 December 1964. She was aged almost 20 · at the date of the accident. The plaintiff had left school when she was ·16. J and in grade 10 She and her family had lived for several years at Oberon in New South Wales.when the family moved to Gladstone. She concluded her schooling in Gladstone at the end of _1980. Her first employment was in a jeweller's shop where she worked fo~ the Christmas holiday period. In 1981 she then went to Sydney to l:Lve with her sister and she obtained work there as a teacher's aide at a private kinder- garten. It seems from the evidence that she was there for most of that year. She then returned to live with her family who at that time were living at Benaraby, which is south of Gladstone. She at some time thereafter got employemnt as a photographer's assistant at the office of The Gladstone Observer, the,local newspaper, and it seems · 0 rinter, Old. 7 A 0 20 0 30 0 0 40 50 60. -- 9 of 19 -- 10. 20 (:: 30 40 50 60 that she remained there in 1982 for about eight months. In 1983 she commenced to do a hospitality course at the Gladstone T.A.F.E. After that she was employed as a waitress at the Benaraby Roadhouse. This roa:dhbuse serve~ the public twenty-four hours per day and it seems that she worked there also for about eight months. In October 1984, about a month or so before this accident, she came to live in Brisbane intending to st~y living here with friends. She was at that time unemployed and was, in fact unemployed at the date of the accident, although she was registered for unemployment and was looking for work. Subsequent to the accident she was admitted to the Princess Alexandra Hospital. She was unconscious and had suffered a severe head injury. Other abdominal injuries required surgical intervention and a laparotomy was per±ormed with the finding of a significant quantity of blood. in her stomach in fact, approximately 1.5 litres. She had a laceration of the right lobe of her liver, a lacerated spleen and haematoma of the. anterior aspect of.the aorta. fl_fter -- this surgery, she was retained in intensive care for some four or·five days. She also suffered severe f.acial injuries involving a fracture of her r:tandibl-e. Subs eque:r;i._tJ. y the· plaint~ff underwent a number of $μ~~i9al procedures and was subject to medical supervision for approxri.mately the, ri.ext tw.o· years. medical attention from time to time. f.i_:- - She still requires The plaintiff;, -..Ja_s is obvious from the evidence, suffered a serious head injury and has been left with its consequences. These are detailed in the reports of Mr.Salzman, a clinical . . neuro-psychologist. The p;Lai~tiff has been left with mild --vt. Printer, Old. 8 10 20 30 40 50 60 -- 10 of 19 -- 10 to moderate verbal memory deficits and,poor history memory which is indicative.of.a mild retrograde amnesia. In addition, she suffers mild to moderate impaired concentration and attention.· Significantly, she has been left with frontal lobe damage or impairment, and in Mr. Salzman's view, there has been a :significant reduction in verbal intellect. Addit~onally, there were indications·to him of major personalit problems of a ch,ronic~ nature and, in his view, she has been left with neuro-psychological problems. The diffuse brain damage which it is said the plaintiff is suffering from has•l~ft her with headaches, loss of memory-~nd impaired 20 30 lfO 50 60 concentrati6~, and in particular significant personality changes. She obviously presents as a person who is ~g±t~ vague arid lackin~ in motivation. In the opinion of Dr. Mu.lholland, a psychiatrist, she -suffers ,an organic' affective depressive disorder. Apart• from.these serious consequences, the plaintiff also suffered s~gnificant physical injuries, ·particularly abdominal. injuries:, "and as a re·sul t of this she has been left with several'disabling features. The plaintiff suffers from chronic constipation and her position now is that her bowels move infrequently and periods of fo~r days to a week may elapse between bowel movements. This causes considerable pain and swelling to her abdomen and the motion itself is painful. -Govt. Printer, Old. 9 10 0 20 Q 30 (J 0 40 50 60 -- 11 of 19 -- 10 20 C 30 0 0 40 50 60 The po·si tion has not improved. signifi?~n_:l::ly, al though dietary changes ha,ve. been attempted to overeome it. It appears that on this account she was treated surgically for a rectocele and, although the symptoms have improved, she still suffers significantly on this account and the medical evidence in respect of it emphasises the serious abdominal injury which she suffered as the .eause of her present discomfort in this respect. She also suffers from impairment of bladder function. · She indicated that from time to time she experiences discomfort when passing urine. Since the accident her menstrual cycle, which pre-accident had been regular, didn't occur for approximately 12 months and since that time_ has occurred only, approximately six times. She indicated that on the occasions when she has experienced her menstrual cycle she has_ had_ no ... ~arning of that fact. She is concerned:that her capacity fo~ childbirth may be affected, but the medical evidence doesnot support this. She suffers from time to time abdominal pai.n. .· She also suffered some orthopaedic injuries,.including a fracture of her right wrist, but this has now resolved and she is left with no residual disability. She ·has,_ as I mentioned, suffered facial injuries, particularly resulting- ~rom the fractu:i;e of her mandible. She-suffer,ed bruising to both legs from the knees to the ankles. As a result of the injury her right eye is described as being very dry and she has ·therefore had to use some form of eyedrops to -·· (~~. . - . ·- . eliminate the problems associated.with ~is.dryness. :·She~•<::l.1,§.o suffere as a result of the injury, a. not insignificant _J,os_s: of hear~I?:g•_. Dr. Jobbins, in his report dated 23 March 1990, discloses that -Govt. Printer, Old. 10 10 20 30 40 > ..... 50 60 -- 12 of 19 -- i 10 20 30 40. sb 60 an audiog~am shows that she still has a slight conductive . ,. . . ~ .· . ' ... . .· . . ., hearing loss in her right ear. This const~tutes a moderate disability and this degree of hearing loss will be permanent. It has resulted from damage to the ossicles in her middle ear whi~h was repaired by surgery but nonetheless has left her with a moderate cqnductive hearing loss in her right ear. The plaintiff, as I mentioned, has suffered _a severe personality change and this is chara~terised by significant mood changes. He~ m.other gave evidence, which I accept, that before she was injured the plaintiff was a happy girl who was qui:t,~ outgoing and witty and who loved to play sports. She had a very active lifestyle, had many friends and got on particularly well with her_family. As a result of the head injur_Y the pla_intiff appears to her mother to be totally confused and now manifests a somewhat acute hostility towards other members of he.r family who, in the opinion of the plaintiff herself, seem to be working against her~ She adopts . - - ) ~ . ~ . .. the same attitude towards her mother and father and is left with.the view, apparently, that other people are being critical of, h-_er. Her mother described her as at times being happy and later being depressed _and miserable. She describes her memory _a_s very poor and e_rratic. It_is clear, in my view, that this young woman has suffered severe and disabling injuries with painful c;::onsequences. __ She is very much a different person now,. . and as.Dr. Mulholland said, it is likely that she will merely drift through l~fe without t~~ benefit of any stable or meaningful relationships. Leaving aside the head injury, one of the most extraordinary features of this case is that as a result of her ~ ... - · ""'rinter, Qld. 11 10 0 20 CJ 30 0 0 40 so 60 -- 13 of 19 -- !:... • __J 10 20 0 30 0 ,40 50 . 60 abdominal irijuries,the performance of one.of the most ba~ic of bodily furi6ti6ns is severely impaired, and this is; as I have said, al together and apart· :from the serious head and other injuries which she sustained. In a· woman so young the consequences for' her are very serious ind~ed~ She did, as I have said, suffer a painful facial injury as well-which· continues to cause her some pain and discomfort unless some further dental treatment is und~rtaken. The ~ssessment of the damages for pain and suffering with th{s collection of injuries and serious consequences is somewhat dif°ficult. However, in my view, the sum of $80,000 under this· h·eading is appropriate. I have assessed that sum to take account also of the possibility o( future medical attention and the cost·of medication ... I ~apportion $25,000, to pain and,, suffering to the date of trial and allow her interest o·ri that amount in the sum of $7,500. I have detailed above her working history before she wai injured. At the time 6£ the" accident she was, as I have already said, unemployed. She had .- only a short time before that left her employment at the· · · ·Benaraby Road House and had travelled to Brisbane where she was looking for work, and she was at that time registered for unemployment benefits~ I consider it·to be more probable than not that she would in the near future have obtained employment in ari unskilled or semi-skilled occupation. She was qu~lified for work in the hospitality industry and I am of the view - ' that the level of income available tO o·ne employed ,say ,as a waitress or a shop assistant provides a reisonable basis for calculating her economic loss . ,... --~ Printer, Qld. 12 7 10 2Q ao 40 50 60 -- 14 of 19 -- --------------------------------~ ------- -- 10 20 30 '40 50 60 Since· the· accident - she has found two employers, ··both of whom could be fairly·; described as compassionate or benevolent. I was particularly impressed by the evidence of Mr. Wilton a stained~glass manufacturet"at Glen Innes, for whom.the plaintiff worked for some few months on a casual part-time basis. Mr. Wilton manufactured, amongst other things, stained-glass windows and lampshades and other items by using what he described as the copper foil method. A lot of::' the manufacturing work is in the wrapping of copper foil around pieces of cut glass. He describes it as a simple process.·, ,·He offered the plaintiff this type of employment. The remtineration fixed for it was that $6 was paid to foil 3S pieces arid· it was worked out that a person of a~erage ability"could foi1·35 pieces in approximately 45.rniriutes. He put her to work ·doing this, but it was obvious to him that she was.not capable of-performing anywhere near at the average levelr· He said- that there were long peri6ds of time that.he,observed her when she simply sat on the· chair and actually.,.did nothing. She was either staring at the wall or looking at a piece of glass on the bench. There were, as he said; long periods of inactivity which were not productive. Mr. Wilton's evidence, in my view, indi9at-es in general terms _.,.,.,. her working capacity. - ~--she was often vague and lacking in 10 ~\ u 20 0 30 0 40 concentration and forgetful of even the most .simplest o~ req~irements such as the keeping o~ a note of-the work she was ~ ~ • . ·~·- :;r,._~!::; ~ ~•• >;:~i ) ___ ,, •~ -," "O'c~"·--c-~-::_ . _ :~ doing _fo:r;__f)~~~~~?-~ :R~~tp~~ -•~ upon, -~~--te~gtrig~9f 'this~~~:i:-e«:o:r:-q,§~pe.ri~the amount that she was to ·be paid. Mr. Wilton encouraged her-: __ ,_ to attempt some form of adult education, which she tried at 60 -Govt. Printer, Old. 13 -- 15 of 19 -- 'r 1 10 20 0 30 0 C: 40 5.0 the local . college, but it came to nothing .. · She. worked only sporadically_and-finally left Mr. Wilton's ,employment without any notice to him. Mr. Holz..igal owns a motor cycle shop in Brisbane. The plaintiff has had a long time interest in motor cycles. She learned to ride one when she was only eight when she assisted in must:ering stock on her parents' property at Oberon in New South Wales. In January of this year Mr. Holz•igal gave her a job, knowing of he.r disabilities, and also knowing her interest in motor cycles. She was en~aged to ansyver the phone, take orders for spare parts, _pack. \he, part ordered and send it_out with the invoice~ The job• involved her working three days per week. She attended, and still attends, irregularly and is never punctual~ She makes, many mistakes about which Mr. Holzigal seems to have a charitable view, although his partner is not so likeminded. From my observations of her, and the evidence which I heard, I assess her as incapable of doing other than menial work. and Mr. Holzigal's evidence left me.with the clear impressi~n that 10 20 30 he would make use of her very limited talen.ts ~ at least for. 40 the time being and for so long as the demands of his.business permitted it. The plaintiff is not totally unemployable, although in a practical sense it is very unlikely that_ she will ever-be able to hold a permanent posi tio_n even in employment which requires .. ·:~;:::~::th·e .most basic of work skills .. The medical· evidence supports a-' finding that, .. if not:, unemployable, she is and will. be at.a very distinct disadvantage in finding and holding on to suitable emp107ment. For the purpose of 50 ~ ~ -Govt. Printer, Qld. 14 -- 16 of 19 -- -------·-·-·--·----------------------------- 10 20 30 40 SQ assessing her economic loss to date regard must be had to what~she has alre~dy e~~~ed. For the purpose of assessing her .· future economic loss it is proper that that assessment should take account of the fact that she may earn at irregular intervais relat.ively smaller amounts by way of income. Her future ea·rnings, if ariy, will depend upon her finding a benevolent:employer who is prepared to engage her in part-time ' . employment doing jobs which require very limited skills. Exhibit 34 shows ihat if she had been employed subject to the Cafe,·Restaurant and Catering Award she would·to the time of trial'have· earned· net. the sum of $48,036.29. If empioyed as a shop assistant her net earnings would have been $62,819~·85. The~e assessments give a fair indicatiori of her net· earning capacity for the period of approximately five year and three months prior to trial. Allowing for the fact that· she w~~ unemployed at the time of the accident and may have suffe'.red further periods of unemployment in that period, and giving due allowance for the usual contingencies, i assess her economic,·ioss to trial at the sum of $45,000~ . This' assessment ., takes into account also the small amounis which she earned in the employment of Mr. Wilton and Mr. Holzi.gal. She has received some amounts prior to trial by way of unemployment benefit and·other Social Security payments, see Exhibit 37. I wil 1 allovr her interest at the rate of ;6· /·· per cent for a period of five years on the sum of $35,000 in the sum of $],0,500. As to future _economic loss, it is clear from::the . - 10 0 20 0 30 0 040 50 evidence that her.future employment prospects_are poor. She wil , 60 60 ....,,_,,._ Printer, Qld. 15 -- 17 of 19 -- .,_ ' _,,,· 10 C 20 30 0 40 50 60 in my view, find some employment but this will be at irregular intervals, willibe poorly paid, and she will find it difficult to hold employment. For the purposes of the assessment I will adopt the net-. sum of $260 as the net. weekly loss by reference to Exhibits 34 and 35. She is now aged only 24. Allowing for the fact that she will probably earn some amounts, may receive unemployment or other benefits, and making due allowance for the u.sual contingenci~p, I wil 1 adopt 25 as the number of lost years for the purposes of the calculation. Using. the tables, it appears that the present value of $260 per week for 25 years at 5 per cent interest per year is $196,040. For future economic loss I assess the sum of $195,000. Her damages therefore are assessed as follows: Pain and suffering Interest on past pain and suffering Economic loss to trial_ Interest on. $35~000 Future economic loss Agreed special damages inclusive· of interest The agreed cost of domestic care including interest Making a total of $·80,000 $ 7,500, $ .45,000 ,$10,500 $195,000- · $ 6,200 $ 1,500 $345,700 From the ~vidence it is, in my·vie~, clear that the plaintiff is una};>le to properly manage or administer a large sum of money. It is, in my view necessary in her interests that the sum which I award be protected by an order in favour cif the Public Trustee. In so concluding, I have had regard to -Govt. _f'ri~ter, Qld. 16 10 20 30 40 50 60 -- 18 of 19 -- ,,- 10 20 30 40 50 60 ' .. the medical:evidence and that of her mother. In the course of her evidence her mother said that on one occasion she and her husband gave the plaintiff $1,500 to assist her. Her mother believes that she gave most of it away. The cost of the administration of the fund of the Public Trustee cannot be determined accurately. However, it seems to me that a calculation made by reference to Exhibit 40 for _the purpose of performing this inexact exercise results in a further cost of approximately $18,000, which sum I allow as part of her damages. Therefore I propose to give judgment for the plaintiff for $363,700 with costs to be taxed. I propose also to make a protection order in favour of the Public Trustee pursuant to s.67 of the Public Trustee Act. I will not make that order until I am satisfied in 10 20 terms of s.67 subs .. 3thatnotice of my intention to.do so has been given 30 personally to the plaintiff. I expect that if and when that consent is forthcoming I will formally enter judgment in accordance with a draft which I expect will be prepared for my perusal. In the circumstances I think it proper that the plaintiff should pay the costs occasioned by the adjournment o 26 March and I will incorporate that in the final order which I make wher1 J _c;lm informed that the plaintiff consents to my making.,. the 'P!;?P'a:t:Lon ~rder. ' .. I expect,. th.;t 'j£;~ .you ~ill hav~Ja ·12,~~1'"~:i.::; '-.;>:? 40 0 0 0 0 order for me which will incorporate an order that the plaintif pay the costs of.the defendant occasioned by the adjournment o 50 26 March. 60 , ::::Gnv!:.~rinter, Qld, 17 -- 19 of 19 --