Keywords: District Court of Queensland; QDC; Rosengren DCJ; motor vehicle accident; personal injuries; Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld); Civil Liability Regulation 2014 (Qld); ISV; general damages; loss of earning capacity; future economic loss; credibility; social media evidence; cervical spine soft tissue injury; lower back injury causation.
By Honest Grace Legal | Personal Injury Law | Sep 2025
Subject
Norman v Hird & Anor [2025] QDC 44 - $103,198 damages for minor cervical soft tissue injury
What Happened
- In August of 2020, Ms Taleisha Rose Norman (plaintiff) and Ms Jennifer Nicole Hird (the first defendant) collided at the Beerburrum Road / Beerburrum–Woodford Road. Liability was admitted; only quantum was in dispute. The judgment was delivered 31 March 2025 by Rosengren DCJ.
- The plaintiff alleged ongoing neck and lower back symptoms from the subject accident. Two orthopaedic surgeons (Dr Labrom and Dr Sharwood) provided expert evidence.
Key Legal Issues
- Assessment of damages under the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) and Civil Liability Regulation 2014 (Qld), including the appropriate Injury Scale Value (ISV) for the neck injury.
- Causation: whether the plaintiff’s intermittent lower back symptoms were caused by the accident.
- The plaintiff’s credibility and the weight to give her account, including consistency with social media activity.
- Loss of earning capacity: method and quantum for past and future economic loss for a very young plaintiff.
- Whether claimed special and future expenses (e.g., medicinal cannabis, pain management specialists) were recoverable on the evidence.
- Application of s 60(1)(a) CLA (no interest on general damages).
What the Court Decided
- Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $103,198.
- Costs: Written submissions to be filed within seven days.
Breakdown
- General damages (ISV 4): $6,480 (no interest under s 60(1)(a)).
- Special damages (incl. Medicare refund $932.65 + out-of-pocket expenses): $1,633.
- Interest on out-of-pocket expenses: $75.
- Past economic loss: $19,140; interest $1,040; past superannuation $1,830.
- Future economic loss (incl. super): $70,000.
- Future expenses: $3,000.
Key Findings
- Neck injury established; minor and intermittent. The plaintiff suffered a soft tissue cervical injury consistent with the crash mechanism, but symptoms had improved and were not constant. Treatment largely involved analgesics/anti-inflammatories with infrequent recent attendances. This fit Item 89 (minor cervical spine injury) with an ISV of 4.
- Lower back injury not proven on balance. The Court was not satisfied the intermittent lumbar symptoms were caused by the accident, noting (i) a four month delay to first recorded complaint; (ii) overlap with significant gynaecological issues often accompanied by back pain; and (iii) plausible alternative explanations (deconditioning/slight build; physiotherapist’s opinion; reported L4/5 disc bulge)
- Credibility qualified. Social media posts and inconsistent evidence about ending the truck driving job suggested some exaggeration of symptom severity/constancy; the Court treated her evidence with caution but did not reject it wholesale
- Economic loss approach.
- Past: modest allowances, including a three-week delayed start in retail (~$240); major allowance (then discounted 40%) for the nonworking period after leaving truck driving due to contingencies (gynaecology, mental health, build/role suitability); and a smaller allowance (discounted 20%) around relinquishing an assistant manager role in early 2025
- Future: global assessment $70,000 (incl. super) reflecting a real chance of ongoing loss given neck related limits (standing/overhead work), preclusion from truck driving due to constant jarring, age, and employment history
- Special/future expenses. Allowed small sums for analgesics and travel; no allowance for medicinal cannabis (prescribed for unrelated reasons) and no pain specialist costs (no evidentiary basis)
- Interest. No interest on general damages per s 60(1)(a) CLA; specified interest awarded on out-of-pocket and past economic loss
Outcome
- The Court accepted a soft tissue neck injury was caused by the accident, however found the plaintiff’s symptoms intermittent and improved (supported by medical records and social media), warranting Item 89 with ISV 4 rather than a higher item. This capped general damages at a modest level
- For the lower back, causation failed: the late emergence of complaints, frequent association with gynaecological episodes, and other equally plausible causes meant the plaintiff did not discharge the onus. This significantly constrained both general damages and any economic loss tied to lumbar problems
- In evaluating economic loss for a young plaintiff with limited work history, the Court applied the s 55 CLA framework and authorities on “double prophesying”, weighing real possibilities (from sporadic casual work to stable fulltime sedentary roles). It accepted the plaintiff could not sensibly continue in truck driving because of neck jarring on uneven ground but also recognised substantial contingencies from unrelated health issues and her slight build. This produced a discounted past loss and a global future loss of $70,000 (incl. super).
- Special/future expenses were confined to what the evidence supported (analgesics, occasional attendances, travel), rejecting medicinal cannabis and pain specialist claims for lack of causal link/evidentiary basis
Why This Case Matters
- Causation discipline: Even with liability admitted, plaintiffs must prove that each complained of injury (here, the lower back) was caused by the accident when competing explanations exist. Delay to first complaint and overlaps with unrelated conditions can be decisive
- Credibility in the digital age: Courts may contrast clinical complaints with social media activity when assessing symptom constancy and functional restriction. When credibility is called into question, the plaintiff bears the onus of proof to satisfy the court on the balance of probabilities that their claim should be accepted
- ISV calibration: Soft tissue neck injuries with intermittent symptoms and limited treatment may fall into Item 89 (minor cervical) with a low ISV, materially reducing general damages
- Young plaintiffs & economic loss: Demonstrates a global, contingency aware approach under s 55 CLA, including explicit percentage discounts and realistic appraisal of vocation suitability (e.g., heavy vehicle/uneven terrain roles)
- Evidence for expenses: Specific proof is required for therapeutic claims (e.g., medicinal cannabis, specialist pain treatment); absent a causal/evidentiary basis, such claims will be refused.
Source
https://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2025/QDC25-044.pdf