Murphy v Madill

[2025] QSC 103 · Sullivan J

In plain language

Daniel Murphy was a solicitor who suffered psychiatric injury after two motor vehicle accidents. In the first, in January 2017, he came upon a fatal road collision while driving and tried to help; the trauma later affected him. In the second, in August 2019, his car was hit from behind, causing neck and back injuries and worsening his mental health. The insurer for the at-fault drivers, Suncorp, admitted liability, so the case was about what injuries the accidents caused and how much the plaintiff should recover. The court found the second accident caused genuine physical and psychiatric injury but rejected the plaintiff's large claim for lost earnings based on him becoming a well-paid lawyer at a mid-sized firm. The judge held that, because of long-standing psychiatric conditions and autism that predated the accidents, he could only ever have worked modestly as a solo practitioner. The plaintiff was awarded $635,146.81 in total, with future loss of earning capacity the largest component.

Incident & injury

First accident (10 January 2017): plaintiff witnessed fatal motor vehicle accident while driving and rendered aid, suffering psychiatric injury as rescuer/bystander. Second accident (28 August 2019): plaintiff's vehicle rear-ended by second defendant's vehicle on Pacific Motorway near Upper Mount Gravatt.

Diagnoses
PTSD (delayed onset, florid after second accident), Adjustment disorder, Cervical spine musculoligamentous injury (DRE Category II, 4% WPI net of pre-existing), Lumbar spine pain (2% WPI)
Incident date
10 January 2017
Location
Gateway Motorway, Stretton (first accident); Pacific Motorway near Upper Mount Gravatt (second accident)

Quick facts

Date of judgment
22 May 2025
Claim type
MAIA
Proceeding
Trial
Plaintiff outcome
Successful
Plaintiff age at injury
42
Occupation
Solicitor (sole practitioner) Professional
Liability
Admitted
ISV assessed
10 · Item 12, Sch 4 Civil Liability Regulation 2014 (Qld) — moderate mental disorder (PIRS 4-10%)
Whole Person Impairment
13%
Total damages
$635,147

Outcome

Judgment for the plaintiff against the third defendant (CTP insurer) for $635,146.81 inclusive of interest. The court found the second accident caused 6% whole-body physical impairment and psychiatric injury (assessed at ISV 10), but rejected the plaintiff's high economic-loss claim based on mid-tier firm earnings, finding he could only realistically practise as a sole practitioner at a modest level due to pre-existing psychiatric conditions and ASD.

Defendant

1 AAI Limited ABN 48 005 297 807 trading as Suncorp Insurance

CTP Insurer (for both first and second defendants)

Judgment against this defendant
$635,147
Heads of damage
General damages $17,150
Interest on general damages $0
Past economic loss $81,137
Interest on past EL $10,228
Past superannuation $0
Future loss of economic capacity $331,432
Future superannuation $0
Past care (Griffiths v Kerkemeyer) $0
Interest on past care $0
Future care $107,738
Past special damages (plaintiff) $46,461
Interest on past special damages $1,473
Future special damages $40,000

Key issues

📑 Cite this case (AGLC4)

Murphy v Madill [2025] QSC 103

When typing in a Word document, italicise the case name. The copy button copies plain text suitable for any editor.

← Back to the case archive