Locke v Bova & Anor [2004] NSWSC 534

Locke v Bova & Anor [2004] NSWSC 534

The plaintiff's psychiatric injury was caused by the defendants' admitted negligence and substantially reduced his capacity to work in emergency medicine. His limited work hours were not a lifestyle choice or a product of income protection insurance, but reflected genuine reduced capacity. But for injury he probably would have pursued and completed specialist training in emergency medicine, assessed conservatively as a 75% chance, and his damages had to reflect that lost earning capacity, less his residual capacity to earn about $80,000 gross per annum and subject to vicissitudes. Significant general damages were warranted because the PTSD and depression profoundly changed his working...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 June 2004
Procedural Posture
Medical Negligence Claim for Damages for Nervous Shock / Liability Admitted; Assessment of Damages After Hearing
Outcome
Verdict for the plaintiff with costs; parties to confer and agree on calculations reflecting the reasons, after which judgment will be entered.
Legal Topics
['nervous Shock' 'post Traumatic Stress Disorder' 'loss of Earning Capacity' 'past Wage Loss' 'future Medical Expenses' 'general Damages' 'loss of Chance of Becoming a Specialist']
['tort Law' 'medical Negligence' 'personal Injury Damages'] ['nervous Shock' 'post Traumatic Stress Disorder' 'loss of Earning Capacity' 'past Wage Loss' 'future Medical Expenses' 'general Damages' 'loss of Chance of Becoming a Specialist']

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

Medical Negligence Claim for Damages for Nervous Shock / Liability Admitted; Assessment of Damages After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What damages should be awarded to the plaintiff for post traumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder caused by witnessing the negligent trauma to his wife.' "Whether the plaintiff's reduced working hours after injury reflected reduced earning capacity or a lifestyle choice influenced by income protection insurance." 'What the plaintiff would probably have earned but for injury, including the chance that he would have become a specialist in emergency medicine.' 'What work and earning capacity remained open to the plaintiff after injury.' 'What amounts should be allowed for general damages, medical expenses, past wage loss, future earning capacity and superannuation.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's psychiatric injury was caused by the defendants' admitted negligence and substantially reduced his capacity to work in emergency medicine. His limited work hours were not a lifestyle choice or a product of income protection insurance, but reflected genuine reduced capacity. But for injury he probably would have pursued and completed specialist training in emergency medicine, assessed conservatively as a 75% chance, and his damages had to reflect that lost earning capacity, less his residual capacity to earn about $80,000 gross per annum and subject to vicissitudes. Significant general damages were warranted because the PTSD and depression profoundly changed his working...

Court Disposition

Verdict for the plaintiff with costs; parties to confer and agree on calculations reflecting the reasons, after which judgment will be entered.

Orders

  • ['There should be a verdict for the plaintiff, with costs.' 'The verdict should reflect the reasons, including general damages of $225,000.00, interest on general damages at 2% to be agreed, past medicals of $10,349.35, past wage loss to be agreed, loss from 1.7.03 to 25.8.03 to be agreed, loss from 26.8.03 to date...