Public Liability Claims: $51k Compensation for Kidney Injuries

How much compensation for a negligence claim involving kidney injuries in Western Australia? $51,280 was awarded to the Injured Party for a Grade 3 kidney laceration with hematoma and post-hemorrhagic anemia.

This case study shows how contributory negligence was off the table because the defendants lost by default judgment. Here’s everything you need to know about the public liabilty kindy injury claim.

Introduction to the Injured Party’s Public Liability Claim

This case study explores [2018] WADC 81, a significant personal injury case heard in the District Court of Western Australia. It highlights crucial elements in assessing liability and damages when individuals claim compensation for injuries sustained at private events. The court’s findings offer valuable insights for those seeking compensation under similar circumstances involving negligence and occupiers’ liability.

How was the Injured Party injured in a public place?

This was a negligence claim under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1985 (WA). The plaintiff, the Injured Party, sought damages, including pain and suffering for personal injuries sustained after falling into an uncovered soakwell on the defendants’ private property during a party.

the Injured Party, the plaintiff, was 16 years and 9 months old and an aspiring professional soccer player at the time of the incident. On March 16, 2013, after attending his Year 12 school ball, he went to an “after-ball” party at the defendants’ property. The party continued into the early hours of March 17, 2013.

At approximately 3:00 AM on March 17, 2013, the plaintiff walked into the backyard of the defendants’ property to make a phone call. While looking at his phone screen, he fell into an uncovered soakwell approximately 1.5 meters deep. The right side of his abdomen struck the edge of the soakwell, causing severe pain in his kidney area.

What was the Injured Party’s personal injury?

The plaintiff sustained a severe renal injury, classified as a Grade 3 injury according to the American Association of Surgical Trauma Classification System. The specific injuries included:

• Laceration of the right kidney, completely separating the top part from the remaining intact portion.
• Contusion or haematoma to the kidney.
• Blood in urine (haematuria).
• Post-hemorrhagic anemia due to blood loss.

What are the main issues disputed in the Injured Party’s public liability compensation claim?

Although liability was established through a default judgment against both defendants, several key issues were disputed during the damages assessment hearing:

• The extent and permanence of the plaintiff’s injuries.
• The impact of the injuries on the plaintiff’s life and future prospects.
• The quantum of damages to be awarded.
• Whether the plaintiff’s alleged intoxication contributed to the accident (raised by the second defendant during the hearing).

Key Evidence Presented in the Negligence Claim Process

Medical Evidence:

Dr. Vasudevan (Consultant Urologist)

Dr. Vasudevan provided crucial medical evidence, confirming the Grade 3 kidney injury and describing the laceration as extending through the “meat” of the kidney, with a complete separation of the top part. He estimated that the plaintiff retained about 80% of his overall renal function and identified a slightly increased risk of high blood pressure later in life due to scarring.

Dr. Jenkins (General Practitioner)

Dr. Jenkins corroborated Dr. Vasudevan’s findings and assessed the plaintiff’s overall permanent disability at 10%. However, the court ultimately recognized a 20% loss of overall kidney function.

Witness Testimonies:

A friend of the plaintiff: A friend who testified about the events of the night, including finding the Injured Party in pain after the fall and assisting him out of the soakwell. This testimony supported the Injured Party’s account of the accident.

The football operations manager: Responsible for football operations at ECU Joondalup Soccer Club, this individual provided testimony regarding the number of games the Injured Party played and his earnings, which was key in determining the economic loss component of the damages.

The party security: The son of the second defendant who acted as security at the party. He testified that he believed the Injured Party appeared intoxicated. However, his credibility was questioned due to inconsistencies in his knowledge of the soakwell and other aspects of his testimony.

Facebook Messenger Communications:

Messages exchanged between the Injured Party and a guest at the party, the daughter of the second defendant, were presented as evidence. These communications included discussions about the accident and the existence of the soakwell, helping to establish the circumstances of the injury.

Joondalup Hospital Records:

These records documented the Injured Party’s blood alcohol level of 0.059 on the morning of March 17, 2013. While the court found this evidence insufficient to prove significant intoxication, it was considered in evaluating the argument of contributory negligence. The court concluded that the blood alcohol level alone was not sufficient to prove that the Injured Party was intoxicated to a degree that impaired his capacity to exercise reasonable care.

Cross-Examination of Witnesses:

The cross-examination of witnesses, particularly Dr. Vasudevan and Dr. Jenkins, by the second defendant, played an important role in challenging the extent of the injury and the issue of intoxication. However, the court ultimately dismissed these arguments due to the default judgment.

Key Findings by the District Court of Western Australia

The District Court of WA made several critical findings:

• Injury Severity: The plaintiff suffered a significant and traumatic injury, resulting in a 20% loss of overall kidney function.
• Recovery: The plaintiff made a significant recovery but has an increased risk of future high blood pressure due to the kidney injury.
• Impact on Soccer Career: The injury temporarily affected the plaintiff’s ability to play soccer, but he resumed playing at a high level within months. He eventually joined the Perth Glory Youth Team, continuing his soccer career successfully.
• Academic Impact: The injury caused the plaintiff to miss about seven or eight weeks of school, leading to a change in subject selection and delayed university entry. Despite this, he successfully enrolled in a Bachelor of Commerce after completing a university preparation course.
• Contributory Negligence: The court ruled that the default judgment precluded consideration of contributory negligence. Additionally, the judge found insufficient evidence to conclude that the plaintiff was intoxicated to a degree that impaired his capacity to exercise reasonable care.

How Much Compensation for the Injured Party’s Public Liability Claim?

The court awarded a total of $51,280 in damages, broken down as follows:

• Non-pecuniary damages (general damages): $50,500
• Past economic loss: $600
• Special damages (kidney guard): $180

Legal Principles Applied in this Personal Injury Claim?

The court applied several legal principles in assessing damages:

• Civil Liability Act 2002 (WA): The statutory caps on non-pecuniary damages were applied as per section 9 of the Act. The formula used resulted in a deduction from the assessed damages, leading to a final award of $50,500 for non-pecuniary loss.
• Assessment of Non-pecuniary Loss: Consideration was given to pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life, loss of enjoyment of life, and the extent of permanent injury.
• Past Economic Loss: The court arrived at a global sum of $600 based on discrepancies in evidence regarding the plaintiff’s potential earnings from soccer matches.
• Special Damages: The court allowed recovery of the cost of a necessary medical device (kidney guard).
• Contributory Negligence: Although not applied due to the default judgment, the court discussed the principles under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence and Tortfeasors’ Contribution) Act 1947 and section 5L of the Civil Liability Act 2002.

Implications and Significance for Similar Public Liability Claims

This case has several implications for future personal injury claims:

• It reinforces the importance of proper pleadings and court appearances, as the default judgment precluded the defendants from raising contributory negligence.
• The case provides guidance on assessing damages for kidney injuries, particularly in young plaintiffs with potential sporting careers.
• It demonstrates the court’s approach to evaluating intoxication and its potential impact on liability, emphasizing the need for clear evidence beyond mere blood alcohol readings.
• The decision highlights the long-term consequences that can arise from seemingly minor oversights in property maintenance (i.e., an uncovered drainage pit).

Guide for Injured People: Avoiding Common Disputes in Public Liability Claims

If you’ve been injured at a private event, like in the case of [2018] WADC 81, it’s crucial to understand the potential disputes that can arise in a negligence claim. Here’s how to avoid key issues and ensure you’re eligible for compensation:

• Get a Lawyer Involved Early: Engaging an experienced personal injury lawyer as soon as possible after your injury is essential. This step is critical to ensure all aspects of your claim for compensation—including liability, damages, and contributory negligence—are properly addressed from the start. Early involvement of an expert lawyer can prevent disputes over the extent and permanence of your injuries, as seen in this case study. This will strengthen your position and help secure a valid claim.
• Document Everything: Immediately after the incident, gather as much evidence as possible. This includes photos of your injuries, the scene, and any contributing factors, like an uncovered soakwell on private property. This detailed documentation is crucial for your lawyer to build a strong case and claim compensation. Proper documentation can significantly impact the resolution of your claim and ensure you receive compensation for your losses.
• Address Contributory Negligence Early: If there’s any indication that your actions may have contributed to the injury (e.g., intoxication), it’s vital to address this with your lawyer immediately. Addressing contributory negligence early can help maintain a valid claim and increase the chances that you may be entitled to compensation.
• Understand the Importance of Medical Evidence: The quality of your medical evidence can make or break your case. Ensure your lawyer helps you secure detailed medical reports that clearly outline the severity of your injuries, such as a Grade 3 kidney laceration and post-hemorrhagic anemia. This medical documentation is crucial to support your claim and receive the appropriate compensation payout.
• Don’t Delay in Seeking Legal Advice: Time is of the essence in negligence claims. Delays can complicate your case and increase the likelihood of disputes. An experienced lawyer will guide you through the process, helping you complete the necessary steps to make a claim correctly, meet all legal requirements, and avoid common pitfalls. Acting quickly can ensure you’re able to make a claim and receive full compensation for your injuries.

By following these steps, you can strengthen your claim and reduce the chances of disputes that could delay or diminish your compensation. If you’re dealing with a complex situation, such as potential contributory negligence, getting a lawyer involved early is your best strategy for securing the compensation you deserve.

Make a Public Liability Claim? Contact Foyle Legal

If you’ve been injured in Western Australia, especially if you’re young and dealing with uncertainties around contributory negligence, it’s crucial to get expert help right away. Foyle Legal specializes in personal injury claims, including complex cases where contributory negligence might be involved. We understand the challenges that come with these types of injuries, like those in the [2018] WADC 81 case, and we’re here to guide you every step of the way.

As one of Perth’s leading personal injury lawyers, Foyle Legal team of specialists in public liability claims in Perth has extensive experience in handling cases like yours. Whether you’re dealing with a negligence claim or need advice on a product liability claim, we’ve successfully helped clients secure compensation for their losses in similar situations. From understanding the difference between a public liability and product liability claim to navigating the complexities of workers’ compensation, our lawyers are here to support you.

Don’t wait—claim for compensation as soon as possible. There are strict time limits, often years from the date of injury, within which a claim can be made. We’ll help you gather the necessary evidence to support your claim and handle the insurer on your behalf, ensuring you’re eligible to claim and receive the compensation for negligence claims that you deserve.

If you’re uncertain about how to proceed or need help with an online claim check, Foyle Legal offers a claims guide and expert advice tailored to your specific needs. We understand that personal injury law covers a wide range of injuries and situations, and our goal is to help you achieve a successful claim.

When you file a claim, it’s essential to have the right team on your side. Foyle Legal has dealt with common injury claims, and we can provide examples to help you understand what to expect. Our compensation lawyers are dedicated to ensuring you’re entitled to make a claim and that you receive the full value of your compensation.

Remember, delays can hurt your case. Contact Foyle Legal today to start the process and secure compensation for your injuries. Our claims lawyers are ready to help with your claim, ensuring you get the best possible outcome.

Conclusion

The [2018] WADC 81 case highlights the complex nature of negligence claims that arise from accidents at private events. It emphasizes the duty of care that property owners have to maintain safe premises, as failing to do so can result in significant compensation claims. The court’s approach in this case, especially in assessing both immediate and long-term impacts of injuries, provides valuable insights into the resolution of similar cases.

This case remains relevant in Australian personal injury law as it exemplifies how courts assess damages for severe internal injuries, particularly in young plaintiffs with promising careers. It also sheds light on the application of statutory caps on non-pecuniary damages and the assessment of economic loss in negligence claims involving amateur athletes.

For anyone injured in a public or private setting, understanding the intricacies of personal injury law is crucial. A lawyer can help navigate the complexities of filing a valid claim, ensuring you’re entitled to compensation. If you’re injured in a private place, it’s essential to seek legal advice early to ensure your claim is properly defended and supported by strong evidence. This approach can significantly impact the amount of compensation you receive for your injuries.

Sources:

Civil Liability Act 2002 (WA): https://www.legislation.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/main_mrtitle_149_homepage.html

SPASESKI -v- CHIN [2018] WADC 81 Case Decision:

https://ecourts.justice.wa.gov.au/eCourtsPortal/Decisions/ViewDecision/cfbe2ea3-ee8f-4934-800b-d3eaedbafa55

Occupier’s Liability Act 1985: https://www.legislation.wa.gov.au/legislation/statutes.nsf/main_mrtitle_649_homepage.html