Comprehensive Legal Analysis of the Jerry and Margo Case (Law Report)

This report provides a detailed legal analysis of the Jerry and Margo case, focusing on the aftermath of an accident and its impact on the family. It examines the provision of attendant care services, both past and future, considering the roles of Jerry, Margo, and their son Andrew. The analysis delves into the application of tort law principles, including causation and remoteness, to determine the scope of liability. The report discusses personal injury claims under both common law and the Civil Liability Act (CLA), as well as the Motor Accidents Compensation Act (MACA), assessing non-economic loss and potential compensation. Furthermore, it explores the concept of negligence, due care, and the reduction of compensation based on the plaintiff's actions. The report also references relevant legislation and case law, including the CLA Act 2002 (NSW), and provides a comprehensive bibliography.

Past and future attendant care services provided by Jerry to Margo.
In the case of the husband, he was required to spare some time so as to take care of their
son and also take care of Margo. This means that Margo accident had affected other family
members in different ways. Although, it is not stated in the story Jerry was not comfortable to do
the home chores and caring for the family which were supposed to be done by his wife. I believe
Jerry was able to care for his family and still go to work since, he was in a senior position. Were
it other people in junior positions they would have been forced to resign in order to attend to
their families.
Andrew and Jerry suffered as both of them expected Margo to care for them, which
didn’t happen after the accident. Jerry the husband expected the wife to do the home chores and
play the role of a wife which doesn’t happen after the accident. Then son expected the mother to
acre for him and also play the role of a mother. Additionally, the company suffered that they
expect total commitment of Jerry to the job which does not happen since, he within some hours
provide and care for the family.
The law of tort1 provides that the plaintiff should be paid for a maximum of $3,000
monthly cash benefits2 which extends to $36,000 cash benefits3 which is payable for 104 weeks
after the accident. A normal year has 365 days/ 7 days which make a week = 52 weeks which
make up a year. If the compensation is payable after 104weeks/52 weeks that make one year= 2
years. This means that she was to be compensated after 2 years. This means that she would one
be paid for 1 year = $3,000*4number of weeks in a month*1=$12,000.
1 Ronen Avraham, "Pain-And-Suffering Damages In Tort Law: Revisiting The Theoretical Framework And
The Empirical Data" [2003] SSRN Electronic Journal.
2Ronen Avraham, "Pain-And-Suffering Damages In Tort Law: Revisiting The Theoretical Framework And
The Empirical Data" [2003] SSRN Electronic Journal.
3

Margo intended that she would look for another job when his son would be old enough to
look after himself but, this would not be possible due to the permanent injuries the accident had
caused her. It is difficult to predict what would happen in Margo’s life in the future whether she
would have died of other illness or got ill of a disease that had not been insured. In making such
judgments the court uses similar cases for them to make a ruling. In the case of Westfield
shoppingtown Liverpool verses Jevtich (2008) NSWCA 1394 where the injured was unable to
provide for his family after the accident the court ruled out for him to be compensated. Although,
the injured had a disease before the accident he was able to provide for the family and only a
doctor would be able to measure the level of damage that the disease would cause in old age.
In future Jerry would continue to look after their son until he would be able to look after
himself and take care of his wife. This is a kind of a suffering as it would give him headache
trying to balance between job and family. On the other hand, although Margo could get well the
accident left her with marks on the face that makes her not want to face anyone except her close
friends or relatives. The scars are permanent and are things she will have to live with the rest of
her life. More so, even if she got well she continues to experience back and neck pains thus,
cannot perform difficult tasks.
Past and future loss of capacity to provide domestic services to Andrew
Before the accident Margo cared for his son for 21 hours a week and did 7 hours doing
the home chores. These included cooking, shopping for the family and other things that would
4 Jamie Murray, "Complexity Theory & Socio-Legal Studies" (2008) 29(2) Liverpool Law Review.

benefit the whole family. It’s also important to mention that before she gave birth she was
working as a sales person at local company and was a well-known person due to her work.
After the accident she was bed laden for two weeks and was not able to care for his son.
From November 13th 2017 to January 6th 2019 her husband Jerry became responsible to look and
care for their son and care for Margo. Jerry was able to do this with the help of their extended
family. It is until January 7th 2019 that Margo resumed her duties to care for her son.
Unfortunately, she would only manage to do a total of 12 hours a week, and jerry would help her
care for their son. This shows that the accident caused her a major suffering to the extent that she
would not be able to care for his son.
The CLA Act5 provides for the maximum amount that a person should be awarded as a
result of an accident. Additionally it provides that a loss of financial help to be thrice the average
earning of the claimant in a week. In a similar case, of kaplanizi verses6 pascoe which involved a
widow who had lost her husband in a road accident, where the deceased earned more than the
limit provided hence the court ruled that the widow to be paid $500,000 as the share of loss.
Non-economic loss7
The civil liability Act 2002 (NSW)8 was the latest case regarding damages for non-
economic loss. The law states compensation is awarded to cases where at least 15 percent of the
5 "CIVIL LIABILITY ACT 2002 - As At 20 August 2019 - Act 22 Of 2002", Www5.Austlii.Edu.Au (Webpage,
2019) <http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/cla2002161/>.
6 "PASCOE V. PASCOE" (1921) [1921] VLR.
7 Vanessa Wilcox, A Company's Right To Damages For Non-Pecuniary Loss.
8 "A User's Guide To The Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)", Cbp.Com.Au (Webpage, 2019)
<https://www.cbp.com.au/insights/insights/2013/january/a-user-s-guide-to-the-civil-liability-act-2002-(ns>.

most extreme non-economic loss has been suffered. Margo should therefore, be compensated
since her medical report by motor accidents medical guidelines indicated that she had been
impaired more than 10 percent.
In this case study, non-economic loss includes the scars that Margo got during the
accident, and the pain she suffers due to those scars. She is not able to face everybody except her
relatives or close friends. Although, the suffering cannot be attached to monetary value they
cause her so much pain.
According to Trade Practices Act9 compensation that had been awarded was $350,000
annually in October 1st 2004. In this case therefore, the family will be compensated a total of $
350,000 annually from when the accident took place. The accident took place in 2017 untill
today 2019 we have three years hence compensation will be $350,000 * 3 years =$1,050,000.
Negligence
Under Australian rule10 they require that where negligence is the cause of the injury or
loss, the compensation to the plaintiff should be reduced. The court is thus, left to decide to what
extent to reduce the compensation of the complainant. In order to decide on this the court
examines how the plaintiff or the insured could have avoided the loss in order to come up with
the percentage to reduce the compensation with.
Due care11
The law also requires that people practice some precaution and care for themselves and
others. This helps in reducing harm to people and others involved. On the other hand, if a person
9 Emmanuel Stip, "La Psychiatrie Sans Influence : Schizoanalyse Au Bord De La Fenêtre" (2005)
30(1) Santé mentale au Québec.
10 J Charlesworth and R. A Percy, Negligence (1977).
11 Gillian Parker, With Due Care And Attention (Family Policy Studies Centre, 1990).

is seen to have foreseen the loss and did not take precaution the law requires that such a person
compensation should be reduced by 90 percent. Additionally, the court does not have the power
to reduce the amount of compensation by 100 percent. If a court would reduce compensation by
100 percent it means that they were able to prove that the insured suffered a loss as a result of his
negligence wholly.
In the case of Jerry and Margo it’s very difficult to prove that the accident happened 100
percent as a result of jerry lack of due care. Although, to some extent he played part the
Australian law argues that such compensation be reduced. On the other hand, the court and the
insurance companies provides that people should exercise due care to each other so as, to reduce
losses since some losses are un insurable while, others leave permanent suffering. In the case of
Margo and Jerry, the wife was left with permanent scars on the face and neck and back pains that
she could live with for the rest of her life. She could not also be able to care fully for the family
nor look for a job again after her recovery.
Bibliography
Books
Charlesworth, J and R. A Percy, Negligence (1977)
Fürstnow-Sørensen, Bent, Cash Benefits In The Case Of Illness, Disability, Accidents,
Geistfeld, Mark, Tort Law (Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, 2008)
Insurance Act (Legal Education Society of Alberta, 2008)

Old Age, Etc (Ministries of Labour and Social Affairs, International Relations Division, 1970)
Parker, Gillian, With Due Care And Attention (Family Policy Studies Centre, 1990)
Wilcox, Vanessa, A Company's Right To Damages For Non-Pecuniary Loss
Others
"Comparative Analysis Of Damages Concepts In Tort And Under The SABS - Oatley
Vigmond", Oatley Vigmond (Webpage, 2019) https://oatleyvigmond.com/comparative-analysis-
of-damages-concepts-in-tort-and-under-the-sabs/
"A User's Guide To The Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)", Cbp.Com.Au (Webpage, 2019)
https://www.cbp.com.au/insights/insights/2013/january/a-user-s-guide-to-the-civil-liability-act-
2002-(ns
Lawcom.Gov.Uk (Webpage, 2019)
http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/app/uploads/2015/03/cp144_Damages_Personal_Injury_Medical_Nu
rsing_Consultation.pdf
Avraham, Ronen, "Pain-And-Suffering Damages In Tort Law: Revisiting The Theoretical
Framework And The Empirical Data" [2003] SSRN Electronic Journal
Lande, Robert H., "Should Maryland Change From Contributory Negligence To
Comparative Negligence?" [2010] SSRN Electronic Journal
Murray, Jamie, "Complexity Theory & Socio-Legal Studies" (2008) 29(2) Liverpool Law
Review
Stip, Emmanuel, "La Psychiatrie Sans Influence : Schizoanalyse Au Bord De La Fenêtre"
(2005) 30(1) Santé mentale au Québec

"CIVIL LIABILITY ACT 2002 - As At 20 August 2019 - Act 22 Of
2002", Www5.Austlii.Edu.Au (Webpage, 2019)
http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/cla2002161/
"PASCOE V. PASCOE" (1921) [1921] VLR