- within Employment and HR topic(s)
- in Australia
- with readers working within the Banking & Credit, Business & Consumer Services and Insurance industries
How do you assess damages when your client has been injured in two separate motor vehicle accidents with overlapping psychiatric and physical injuries? Murphy v Madill [2025] QSC 103 secured $635,146.81 for a plaintiff with pre-existing psychiatric conditions who suffered psychiatric injury in a 2017 accident and orthopaedic injuries in a 2019 accident. This case summary is for personal injury lawyers, examining how courts apportion damages between multiple accidents, assess causation with pre-existing conditions, and calculate economic loss for a solicitor operating under a restricted practicing certificate.
CLAIM TYPE: Motor Vehicle Accident
PLAINTIFF: Male, 51 years old (born 24 April 1974), solicitor operating as a sole practitioner
INJURY:
- First MVA (2017): Exacerbation of pre-existing Complex PTSD, Major Depressive Disorder, and Generalized Anxiety Disorder
- Second MVA (2019): Right shoulder injury, lumbar spine injury, bilateral hip injuries (13% whole person impairment from physical injuries)
SUMMARY & LEGAL ANALYSIS: The plaintiff was injured in two separate motor vehicle accidents (with liability being admitted for each).
In the first accident, the plaintiff was driving southbound on the Gateway Motorway at Stretton when he came across a fatal accident scene where a pedestrian (Mr Holland) had been struck and killed. The plaintiff stopped his vehicle, attempted to render aid, and made the decision to secure the truck's load to prevent further accidents. After being told by a nurse that Mr Holland had died, the plaintiff experienced significant guilt about his conduct in not having tried to save Mr Holland's life. This incident caused psychiatric injury, exacerbating his pre-existing Complex PTSD, Major Depressive Disorder, and Generalized Anxiety Disorder.
In the second accident, the plaintiff was travelling in the left-hand lane of the freeway heading towards the Gold Coast. Just south of Upper Mount Gravatt, he was attempting to exit the freeway (indicating but had not yet reached the dotted line) when the second defendant's vehicle struck him from behind. The plaintiff's car was written off. This collision caused orthopaedic injuries to his right shoulder, lumbar spine, and bilateral hips (resulting in 13% whole person impairment), as well as further psychiatric injury and exacerbation of his existing psychiatric conditions.
The plaintiff was admitted as a solicitor between the two accidents and sought damages for past and future economic loss based on income as a lawyer.
This case presented exceptional complexity due to the plaintiff's pre-injury diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), which is reasonably uncommon in personal injury litigation, along with Complex PTSD, Major Depressive Disorder, and Generalised Anxiety Disorder from childhood trauma.
Despite these conditions, the plaintiff had been gainfully employed throughout his life and remarkably qualified as a solicitor between the two accidents, working as a sole practitioner under supervision. The central legal challenge involved separating pre-existing psychiatric deterioration from accident-caused harm through careful apportionment analysis.
A particularly contentious issue arose regarding economic loss assessment, with the plaintiff claiming damages based on mid-tier law firm income while defendants contended only sole practitioner income was appropriate given his pre-existing conditions.
OUTCOME: The court awarded $635,146.81 based on several key findings:
- physical orthopaedic injuries were clearly accident-caused;
- psychiatric harm required careful apportionment separating pre-existing from caused conditions;
- past functioning proved actual professional capacity despite ASD and psychiatric history;
- economic loss assessment rejected the highest claimed comparator but accepted realistic capacity exceeding minimum defendant proposals; and
- the egg-shell skull principle applied without eliminating apportionment requirements.
For practitioners, this demonstrates that ASD and pre-existing psychiatric conditions do not preclude capacity findings where past functioning is demonstrated. Economic loss must reflect realistic rather than most favourable assessments. Pre-accident work history provides powerful capacity evidence versus theoretical medical limitations. The egg-shell skull principle requires taking plaintiffs as found but still necessitates separating pre-existing from caused harm. Courts scrutinise claimed capacity against actual pre-accident trajectory rather than accepting speculative earnings.
DECISION: Murphy v Madill [2025] QSC 103
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.