Dorothy Ruby Peattie v Gregory Eric Murray [1982] FCA 101

Dorothy Ruby Peattie v Gregory Eric Murray [1982] FCA 101

It was not open to find that the appellant unreasonably refused surgical treatment because she had never been given medical advice that she should undergo it. The trial Judge therefore erred in treating her as having failed to mitigate her damages. However, the possibility of future successful surgery was a contingency relevant to assessing future economic loss. Applying an appropriate discount for contingencies and reassessing general damages, the proper award was $80,000.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 June 1982
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Damages Appeal Arising From a Motor Vehicle Accident / Appeal From a Judgment of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory on Assessment of Damages
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Supreme Court judgment set aside; judgment entered for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $80,000; respondent to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal and of the trial.
Legal Topics
['assessment of Damages' 'mitigation of Damage' 'future Economic Loss' 'loss of Earning Capacity' 'refusal of Surgery']
['torts' 'personal Injury' 'damages'] ['assessment of Damages' 'mitigation of Damage' 'future Economic Loss' 'loss of Earning Capacity' 'refusal of Surgery']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Damages Appeal Arising From a Motor Vehicle Accident / Appeal From a Judgment of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory on Assessment of Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial Judge erred in assessing damages on the basis that the appellant had been advised to undergo surgery.' 'Whether the appellant had unreasonably refused surgery and failed to mitigate her damages.' 'Whether the discount applied to future economic loss was erroneous.' 'Whether the award for pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life was too small.']

Ratio Decidendi

It was not open to find that the appellant unreasonably refused surgical treatment because she had never been given medical advice that she should undergo it. The trial Judge therefore erred in treating her as having failed to mitigate her damages. However, the possibility of future successful surgery was a contingency relevant to assessing future economic loss. Applying an appropriate discount for contingencies and reassessing general damages, the proper award was $80,000.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Supreme Court judgment set aside; judgment entered for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $80,000; respondent to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal and of the trial.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be allowed.' 'The judgment of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory set aside and in lieu thereof order that there be judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $80,000.' "That the respondent pay the appellant's costs of this appeal and of the trial."]