Thurgar v Gollschewski & Ors [2002] QCA 430

Thurgar v Gollschewski & Ors [2002] QCA 430 (18 October 2002)

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Thurgar v Gollschewski & Ors [2002] QCA 430

PARTIES:

LORNE ALEXANDER THURGAR

(plaintiff/respondent)

v

KEVIN GOLLSCHEWSKI AND JANINE GOLLSCHEWSKI

(first defendants)

AUSTRALIAN ASSOCIATED MOTOR INSURERS LIMITED ACN 004 791 744

(second defendant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 2521 of 2002

DC No 2960 of 1999

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

18 October 2002

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

21 August 2002

JUDGES:

Davies and Jerrard JJA and Mackenzie J

Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed with costs to be assessed on the standard basis.

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS - NEGLIGENCE - CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE - PARTICULAR CASES - ROAD ACCIDENT CASES - where learned trial judge found that negligence of first defendant was the sole cause of a collision between first defendant and plaintiff/respondent - where appellant contends that the respondent should be held equally or to some degree responsible because he neglected his own safety - where learned trial judge found that respondent took all reasonable care for his own safety - whether contributory negligence should be found on the part of the respondent

DAMAGES - MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT - MEASURE OF DAMAGES - PERSONAL INJURIES - LOSS OF EARNINGS AND EARNING CAPACITY - PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES - where second defendant/appellant contends that the amounts awarded to the respondent for loss of earnings pre-trial and future economic loss should be reduced further than what the learned trial judge allowed - where appellant contends that the 15 year period, estimated by the respondent as the time in which he would have worked in a particular area of the police force had the accident not occurred, was excessive - where appellant contends that the learned trial judge did not make sufficient allowance for other employment possibilities of the respondent - whether such discretionary findings of learned trial judge should be disturbed

Traffic Regulations 1962 (Qld), reg 25(b) Abela v Giew (1965) 65 SR (NSW) 485, cited

Braund v Henning [1988] HCA 36; (1988) 79 ALR 417, distinguished

Lopresto v Golding (1957) 31 ALJR 851, cited

Tucker v McCann [1948] VicLawRp 40; [1948] VLR 222, cited

Twiehaus v Morrison & Anor [1946] NZGazLawRp 99; [1947] NZLR 197, applied

COUNSEL:

M Grant-Taylor SC, with P D Corkery, for the appellant

S CWilliams QC, with D L K Atkinson, for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Deacons Lawyers for the appellant

Maurice Blackburn Cashman for the respondent