Tyron Vance v Stephen Chambers [2016] NSWDC 79

Tyron Vance v Stephen Chambers [2016] NSWDC 79

The plaintiff proved that the motor vehicle accident caused severe physical injuries, brain injury, chronic PTSD, ongoing pain, loss of smell and substantial functional limitations. The court accepted the plaintiff and Mrs Vance as reliable, preferred the evidence of Ms Zeman over Ms Dinley on care needs, rejected the defendant's evidence that the plaintiff could return to work or undertake sedentary work, admitted the forensic accountant's report, and assessed damages for non-economic loss, treatment expenses, economic loss and care. After deducting the agreed 25 per cent for contributory negligence, judgment was entered for the plaintiff for $1,188,128.00.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Motor Vehicle Accident Damages Claim / Assessment of Damages After Liability and 25 Per Cent Contributory Negligence Were Admitted
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $1,188,128.00 after deduction for contributory negligence.
Legal Topics
['assessment of Damages' 'non Economic Loss' 'past and Future Economic Loss' 'past and Future Care and Assistance' 'future Treatment Expenses' 'contributory Negligence' 'expert Evidence Admissibility' 'motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (nsw)']
['personal Injury' 'motor Accidents' 'damages' 'evidence'] ['assessment of Damages' 'non Economic Loss' 'past and Future Economic Loss' 'past and Future Care and Assistance' 'future Treatment Expenses' 'contributory Negligence' 'expert Evidence Admissibility' 'motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (nsw)']

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

Civil Motor Vehicle Accident Damages Claim / Assessment of Damages After Liability and 25 Per Cent Contributory Negligence Were Admitted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Quantum of non-economic loss' 'Quantum and need for past gratuitous care' 'Quantum and need for future care' 'Quantum of past wage loss' 'Quantum of future economic loss' 'Quantum and need for future treatment expenses' "Admissibility of the forensic accountant's report"]

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff proved that the motor vehicle accident caused severe physical injuries, brain injury, chronic PTSD, ongoing pain, loss of smell and substantial functional limitations. The court accepted the plaintiff and Mrs Vance as reliable, preferred the evidence of Ms Zeman over Ms Dinley on care needs, rejected the defendant's evidence that the plaintiff could return to work or undertake sedentary work, admitted the forensic accountant's report, and assessed damages for non-economic loss, treatment expenses, economic loss and care. After deducting the agreed 25 per cent for contributory negligence, judgment was entered for the plaintiff for $1,188,128.00.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $1,188,128.00 after deduction for contributory negligence.

Orders

  • ['There will be a verdict and judgment in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $1,188,128.00.' 'The defendant will have credit for expenses paid pursuant to s 83 of the MACA in the sum of $805.00.' "The defendant will pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings." 'The exhibits are to be...