Hoban v Amcor Limited [1996] QSC 82
Background
On 29 September 1993, John Hoban (the Plaintiff), was injured during the course of his employment with Amcor Limited (the Defendant).
The Plaintiff sustained a compression fracture of the L4/L5 vertebra, a fracture of the T12/L1 vertebral region with retropulsion of the L1 fragments causing compression of the spinal cord. He also suffered capsular damage in the left acetabulum and an injury to his left ankle.
For completeness, the Plaintiff is a paraplegic from the level of his 12th thoracic vertebra down.
Further, the Plaintiff suffered from a recognised but uncommon consequence of paraplegia in the form of chronic lower body pain, described as ‘a severe burning-type pain, in the feet and much of the legs.’ He also suffered intermittent sharp neuralgic pain in his right groin resulting from damage to the nerves local to his fracture.
Assessment of Quantum
Following the incident, the Defendant developed a position to suit the Plaintiff’s return to the workforce, identified as an ‘engineering stores and services coordinator’. While this position was designed to accommodate the Plaintiff’s disabilities, it was accepted
that, in any event, the Plaintiff would continue to be dependent upon others to perform any physical work associated with the role.
The Plaintiff was 50 years of age, and the Court accepted the evidence of Dr Hill, being that the Plaintiff is unlikely to find full-time employment, despite any benefit of retraining. Further, the Court found that ‘the Plaintiff should be regarded as, for all practical purposes, unemployable…’ While the Court considered it likely that the Plaintiff would attempt to engage with the role designed by the Defendant, it is ultimately unlikely that he would continue in the same for any significant period.
Turning to the various heads of damage, the Court awarded general damages in the sum of $150,000 plus interest. Past economic loss was derived from the expert evidence of an accountant, and awarded in the sum of $70,000, less workers’ compensation payments of $36,015.69, plus interest.
The Court awarded the sum of $300,000 for future economic loss, noting that the Plaintiff ‘would have worked longer than the average member of the community.’
By consequence of his injuries, the Plaintiff required a substantial amount of care and assistance. The Court accepted that the Plaintiff had a substantial requirement for care and assistance, which was met primarily by his wife, both since the incident and into the future. The Court subsequently allowed 30 hours of care per week for 25 years, being the total sum of $260,000.
The Plaintiff’s claim for future special damages was accepted, being the sum of $63,620.87. Further, the Court awarded $70,000 for future pharmaceutical expenses; $110,000 for future medical expenses; $90,000 for future equipment expenses; $15,000 for future travel expenses; $85,000 for house modification expenses (plus $50,000 for maintenance costs) and future security costs of $6,000. Finally, the Court awarded a Fox v Wood component of $6,870.90.
In total, the Court awarded the sum of $1,314,963.70, less the refund to the Workers’ Compensation Board, being $101,207.91, for the total award of $1,213,755.79.