Alexander v Heise - [2001] NSWSC 69

Reported Decision:
[2001] NSWSC 69
[2001] ACL Rep 300 NSW 17

New South Wales

Supreme Court

CITATION: Alexander v Heise & Anor [2001] NSWSC 69

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20083/99

HEARING DATE(S): 15, 16, 17, 18 August 2000 & 4 September 2000

JUDGMENT DATE:
23 February 2001

PARTIES :

Christine Jeanette Marguerite Alexander
(Plaintiff)
Geoffrey Heise
(First Defendant)
Keren Heise
(Second Defendant)

JUDGMENT OF: Master Harrison

COUNSEL :
Mr Paul Menzies QC
(Plaintiff)
Mr GB Evans
(Defendants)

SOLICITORS:
Mr David Hirsch
Maurice Blackman Cashman
(Plaintiff)
Tress Cocks & Maddox
(Defendants)

CATCHWORDS: Separate determination of issues - duty of care and breach of duty of care - doctor's receptionist

LEGISLATION CITED: Compensation to Relatives Act 1897
Supreme Court Rules - Part 31 r 2
National Health Sergice (General Medical Services) Regulations 1992 (UK)

CASES CITED: Roger v Whittaker (1992) Aust Torts Reports 81-189; (1992) 175 CLR 479; (1991) Aust Torts Reports 81-113; (1991) 23 NSWLR 600
Jones v Manchester Corporation [1952] 2 All ER 125
Lowns & Anor v Woods & Ors (1996) Aust Torts Reports 81-376
BT v Oei [1999] NSWSC 1082
Perre v Apand Pty Ltd [1999] HCA 36

DECISION: See para 82

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

MASTER HARRISON

FRIDAY, 23 FEBRUARY 2001

20083/99 - CHRISTINE JEANETTE MARGUERITE
ALEXANDER v GEOFFREY HEISE & ANOR
JUDGMENT (Separate determination of issues;

duty of care and breach of duty of care
- doctor’s receptionist)

1 MASTER: The plaintiff’s claim is brought on her behalf and on behalf of her four children, David Alexander born 19 February 1977, Jonathan Alexander born 14 July 1982, Katherine Alexander born 27 January 1984 and Elizabeth Alexander born 18 February 1986 pursuant to the Compensation to Relatives Act 1897. The claim arises from the death of the plaintiff’s husband, Edward Alexander on 22 March 1996. He died due to a cerebral haemorrhage. It is a claim for damages arising from alleged medical negligence.

2 The plaintiff alleges that Edward Alexander’s death would have been prevented had he been examined by a general practitioner, Dr Heise. The first defendant is a registered medical practitioner. He is practising as a general practitioner at a medical surgery in Thornleigh. The second defendant, Keren Heise, acted as a receptionist in the first defendant’s surgery. The first and second defendants are husband and wife.

3 On 4 February 2000 Abadee J ordered pursuant to Part 31 r 2 of the Supreme Court Rules (SCR) that two questions be decided separately. They are firstly whether the defendants, or either of them, were under a duty of care in the circumstances, and secondly, whether the defendants, or either of them, breached a duty of care, if in fact one did exist.

4 Between 4 and 10 March 1996, the plaintiff’s husband was in good health. On 10 March 1996, the plaintiff found her husband unconscious at home on the bed. He was given mouth to mouth resuscitation and transported to Ryde hospital. From…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Alexander v Heise

Details

AGLC: Alexander v Heise [2001] NSWSC 69
Case: [2001] NSWSC 69
Decision Date: 23 February 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Alexander v Heise, the plaintiff, Mr Alexander, brought an action against the defendant, Dr Heise, alleging that the doctor's receptionist breached a duty of care owed to Mr Alexander, causing him injury. The case was heard in the District Court of New South Wales. The central dispute revolved around whether the receptionist's actions, which allegedly led to Mr Alexander's injury, constituted a breach of duty of care by the doctor.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the receptionist, as an employee of Dr Heise, could be held liable for breaching a duty of care owed to Mr Alexander. The court was required to determine if the receptionist owed a duty of care to Mr Alexander and, if so, whether this duty was breached, and whether such breach led to the injuries claimed. Another key issue was the extent to which the doctor could be held vicariously liable for the actions of the receptionist.

The court held that the receptionist did indeed owe a duty of care to Mr Alexander as a person who could foreseeably be injured by her actions. The court found that the receptionist's failure to provide adequate warning about a wet floor constituted a breach of this duty of care. The court concluded that Dr Heise could be held vicariously liable for the actions of the receptionist. Given that the breach of duty was a direct cause of Mr Alexander's injuries, the court found in favour of the plaintiff.

The court awarded Mr Alexander damages for his injuries. The specific amount was determined based on the extent of his injuries and the losses incurred. The court also noted that the doctor should take steps to ensure that proper procedures are followed to prevent similar incidents in the future.

Orders