By Rebecca Roberts, Partner

You will recall our case overview back in 2023 concerning Ms Pringle who had ordered hot chips which had been contaminated with caustic soda. By way of recap Ms Pringle was treated for caustic burns to her upper gastrointestinal tract. Following the incident, she was diagnosed with neuropathic pain disorder and post traumatic stress disorder and had continued to suffer with poor mental health and pain and discomfort. A 5 day trial proceeded on quantum only.

At first instance Ms Pringle was awarded a total of $1,126,045.39 in damages. She was awarded $100,000 in general damages, $449,312 for past economic loss with $145,386.82 in interest, for future economic loss the plaintiff was awarded $350,000.

Tabloid filed an appeal challenging the award of damages to Ms Pringle, specifically with regard to past economic loss, interest and future economic loss.

There were three grounds of appeal.

First Ground of Appeal

The first ground of appeal was that the Trial Judge erred in interpreting the medical evidence of psychiatrist Dr Helena Pirrto regarding the Ms Pringle’s ability to work. The Trial Judge concluded that Ms Pringle was totally incapacitated from  work from January 2015 onwards and failed to reduce past economic loss due to Ms Pringle’s pre-existing vulnerability to mental health issues.

Tabloid contented that this conclusion was inconsistent with Dr Pirrto’s evidence which suggested that she had retained some capacity to work, provided she engage in psychological treatment and gradually transition back to her pre accident role. Tabloid argued that the judge failed to take into account Ms Pringle’s ability to undertake part time employment or the ability to return to work. The Trial Judge acknowledged pre existing conditions however found insufficient evidence to attribute any of the current incapacity from any pre existing condition. Tabloid  argued there should be a discount applied to reflect Ms Pringle’s pre existing condition.

Second Ground of Appeal

Tabloid contended that the Trial judge erred in awarding $145,386.82 in interest on past economic loss due to a calculation error. Ms Pringle conceded this ground.

Third Ground of Appeal

Tabloid alleged that the future economic loss figure was excessive and based on an overestimation of Ms Pringle’s future incapacity. Tabloid argued that the Trial Judge failed to consider the potential for the plaintiff to improve and re-enter the workforce.

Determination

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and reassessed the damages from $1,126,054.39 to $516,683.79, comprised as follows:

• $237,417.21 for past loss of earning capacity
• $23,956,38 for past loss of superannuation
• $87,988.01 for interest on past loss of earning capacity;
• $260,000 for future loss of earning capacity.

Key Principles

As aptly put by the appellate court:

“It should also be remembered that the assessment of damages for personal injuries in an action for negligence is not an exact science.  Ultimately the process must be one of judgment rather than calculation.  Some aspects of the exercise can only be intuitive.  In any event the process of assessment must be governed by considerations of practical common sense in the context of the facts of the particular case.”

The decision succinctly overviews appellate challenges especially in respect to assessment of damages in actions for negligence.

The Court noted that an assessment of damages in actions for negligence is a discretionary judgment and there needs to be  appellate restraint in review of the past and future hypotheticals of an assessment of damages for lost earning capacity. Appellate courts must observe restraint in recognition of the necessary imprecision and evolution involved in determining the likelihood that a past hypothetical event would have occurred or a future hypothetical event will occur.

The judgment also highlighted the role of pre-existing conditions in damages assessments.