- March 19, 2018
- Posted by: Seymour Furlong
- Category: Uncategorised
Car Accident Compensation
In a decision handed down by the Supreme Court in Rockhampton, of Martin v Andrews and AAI Limited  QSC 20, a person who suffered injuries as a result of a motor vehicle accident was able to recover from the CTP insurer an amount of $1,282,572.10.
The plaintiff, Mr Martin, was 39 years of age when the accident happened, and 44 years of age at the trial.
He had previously worked as an electrician and had particular experience working as an electrical fitter/linesman in high voltage work. His apprenticeship was completed whilst he was working in a coal mine. He therefore also had experience in various mining positions.
Liability was admitted with regard to the motor vehicle accident and the trial proceeded by way of an assessment of damages only i.e. the amount of compensation he was to recover.
The injuries he sustained were of a typical whiplash nature, and were soft tissue injuries to his neck and lower back. Mr Martin’s evidence was that he was suffering significant ongoing discomfort and pain, which reduced and effected every aspect of his life.
The Judge accepted Mr Martin as being an honest and genuine person. He found that his evidence was given in a very direct and non-evasive way. The Judge was impressed with him as a witness, and accepted his evidence as given at the trial.
The insurers produced surveillance videos in an attempt to bring into question Mr Martin’s credibility. The lawyers acting for Mr Martin were able to ensure that the court gave no weight to the video surveillance which was obtained.
Mr Martin’s injuries were assessed by various doctors, and in particular, Dr Campbell (neurosurgeon) and Dr Halliday (neurosurgeon). Both doctors assessed his injuries as being somewhere between 5 and 7%, and therefore relatively low in terms of levels of impairment.
Despite this, there was substantial evidence led by Mr Martin and also by an occupational therapist which provided evidence that he was prevented from returning to work and therefore was suffering an ongoing weekly loss which was likely to continue for the remainder of his working life.
The court accepted this evidence and awarded him substantial amounts of compensation, both with respect to past and future economic loss/loss of income.
The case is therefore a shining example to all people that it is important to ensure that you are properly represented by expert lawyers.