{"id":6897,"date":"2017-11-21T23:44:53","date_gmt":"2017-11-21T13:44:53","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/nowinnofeepersonalinjurylawyers.com.au\/?p=6897"},"modified":"2018-06-25T04:46:57","modified_gmt":"2018-06-24T18:46:57","slug":"whiplash-injuries-awarded-million-car-accident-claim","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/nowinnofeepersonalinjurylawyers.com.au\/index.php\/2017\/11\/21\/whiplash-injuries-awarded-million-car-accident-claim\/","title":{"rendered":"Whiplash Injuries Awarded $1.3 Million in Car Accident Claim"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"No

No Win No Fee Personal Injury Lawyers are Experts in Car Accident Claims & Whiplash Injury Claims. Servicing all Qld with offices on Gold Coast & in Brisbane.<\/p><\/div>\n

Mr Martin, sustained whiplash injuries<\/a> to his neck and back in a rear end car accident on the Peak Downs Highway, near Claremont in July 2011. He brought a motor accident claim<\/a> for damages, seeking compensation for his accident injuries.<\/p>\n

Rear end collision causes whiplash injuries <\/span><\/h2>\n

The car accident occurred when Mr Martin\u2019s Landrover was hit from behind at speed by a following motor vehicle, shunting the Landrover into the car in front. Mr Martin sustained significant jarring of his body upon impact, suffering whiplash injuries. That Mr Martin had suffered whiplash injuries in the accident was not in dispute. However, the extent of his injuries, and their impact on his pre-injury lifestyle and employment was very much in dispute.<\/p>\n

Mr Martin’s case went to trial before Justice McMeekin in the Supreme Court, John Alfred Martin v Andrews & AAI Ltd [2016] QSC 20<\/a>.\u00a0The CTP insurer<\/a> of the car that rear-ended Martin\u2019s vehicle, AAI Ltd (Suncorp Insurance), admitted liability for the accident. The only issue in dispute at trial was how much Mr Martin should receive in injury compensation<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Impact of whiplash injuries on the Plaintiff <\/span><\/h2>\n

\u00a0<\/strong>Martin was 40 years of age at the time of his car accident and 44 years of age at time of trial. He\u2019d previously worked in heavy manual employment and was a qualified electrical fitter, mechanic & linesman. He had gained these qualifications whilst working in the mining industry.<\/p>\n

Before sustaining his injuries, Martin had a 20 year history of consistent work, apart from a period of 10 months when he upgraded his qualifications to include high voltage work. When he wasn\u2019t working, he worked on the family farm.<\/p>\n

Eight months before the accident, Martin had started his own business and had won a lucrative contract providing high voltage work in the mines, worth $2,000 per week. This ended when he sustained his whiplash injuries.<\/p>\n

At trial, evidence was given showing Martin to be well respected in his field and a hard worker.<\/p>\n

Whiplash injuries prevent return to employment<\/span><\/h2>\n

\u00a0<\/strong>Mr Martin complained of neck and back injuries following the motor vehicle accident. He was diagnosed as suffering a disc protrusion of his lumbar spine at the L5\/S1 level, with nerve impingement.<\/p>\n

Martin attempted to return to his work as a high voltage electrical technician following the accident, but the heavy work and awkward positioning made this impossible with his whiplash injuries.<\/p>\n

As Martin couldn\u2019t work following the accident, and he couldn\u2019t afford retraining, he had no source of income. He had to sell his car and family farm, and was in debt to the Australian Taxation Office. At the time of the trial, he was so poor that he was living on Centrelink payments and residing in a tent at no fixed address.<\/p>\n

Video Surveillance produced at trial<\/span><\/h2>\n

The CTP Insurer produced surveillance video of Martin pitching his tent, and claimed it proved he was exaggerating his injuries. It was alleged the video showed Martin moving freely, and inconsistent with his complaints & reporting of pain and restriction.<\/p>\n

Back injury alleged unrelated to motor vehicle accident<\/span><\/h2>\n

The CTP Insurer also argued that Martin\u2019s back injury wasn\u2019t caused by the accident, due to his delayed reporting of it. It also claimed Martin was capable of returning to his work within 6 months of the accident but he had chosen not to do so. The CTP Insurer also submitted that Martin could have mitigated his loss by purchasing a motor vehicle to assist him in locating employment.<\/p>\n

The doctors give evidence as to Martin\u2019s whiplash injuries<\/span><\/h2>\n

The Court heard varying evidence from Neurosurgeons and Orthopaedic Surgeons regarding the extent of Martin\u2019s whiplash injuries. The Plaintiff\u2019s medical expert considered Martin suffered an 8% permanent impairment of the whole person due to his neck and back injuries from the accident. He also considered the Plaintiff was unlikely to return to his previous employment roles with his injuries.<\/p>\n

The CTP Insurer\u2019s medical expert assessed Martin\u2019s injuries at a 5% whole person permanent impairment and conceded that the Plaintiff would have difficulties getting into awkward places or carrying heavy items like air conditioners that most domestic electricians required to do.<\/p>\n

Both parties produced evidence from Occupational Therapists as to functional loss caused by Martin\u2019s whiplash injuries. Evidence was given for Martin that he could not return to his previous employment, and he was realistically unemployable due to his injuries. The Defendant\u2019s evidence was that the Plaintiff was capable of returning to his previous employment, despite accepting that the Plaintiff had pain with heavy lifting which was required in his work.<\/p>\n

Court finds for the Plaintiff, awarding $1.3 million in damages <\/span><\/h2>\n

His Honour Justice McMeekin found as follows:<\/p>\n