Bradley David Vance v Daramalan College

BRADLEY DAVID VANCE v DARAMALAN COLLEGE [2002] ACTSC 117 (22 November 2002)

CATCHWORDS

NEGLIGENCE – occupier liability – entrant to premises aware of construction work – walks over rubble in dark – whether breach of duty of care

CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE – plaintiff walks over debris in dark

DAMAGES – personal injuries – back injuries – no issue of principle

Brodie v Singleton Shire Council; Ghantous v Hawkesbury Shire Council (2001) 206 CLR 512

Fox v Wood (1981) 148 CLR 438

Griffiths v Kerkemeyer (1977) 139 CLR 161

McLean v Tedman (1984) 155 CLR 306

Pennington v Norris (1956) 96 CLR 10

Postnet Pty Ltd v Wood & Brown [2002] ACTCA 5

Roads and Traffic Authority v McGuinness [2002] NSWCA 210

Sungravure Pty Ltd v Meani (1964) 110 CLR 24

No. SC 433 of 1998

Coram:        Master T. Connolly
Supreme Court of the ACT
Date:           22 November 2002

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No. SC 433 of 1998
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY           )

BETWEEN:BRADLEY DAVID VANCE

Plaintiff

AND:DARAMALAN COLLEGE

Defendant

AND:BEASEC ENTERPRISES PTY LIMITED (ACN 008 428 331)

Third Party

ORDER

Coram:  Master T. Connolly
Date:  22 November 2002
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $180,866

1. Costs reserved

1. This is a claim for damages for personal injuries arising from a fall which the plaintiff sustained while on the defendant’s premises.  The plaintiff was a relief driver for a milk vendor, and at around 5:30am on 17 July 1997 he was attempting to deliver milk products to the tuckshop at Daramalan College at Dickson in the Australian Capital Territory.  He had made deliveries on three prior mornings this week, and he was aware that building works were being undertaken at the college.  On the previous mornings he had been able to back his truck reasonably close to the tuckshop, so that the lighting from the back of the van would provide some illumination, but on this morning he says that the building works had advanced further and he was unable to back his truck in.  He commenced to carry some crates of milk towards the tuckshop, walking over what he acknowledges he knew were earthworks, when he slipped and fell, sustaining injuries to his lower back.  He brings his claim against Daramalan College as the occupiers of the premises to which he lawfully had access.  The building contract, which was in evidence, makes it clear that the College did have ongoing control and possession of the site, so that it is the correct defendant.

1. The plaintiff was born in 1961 and educated to completion of Year 10 in Canberra.  He then left school and commenced work as a greenkeeper.  He continued in this role for many years, and eventually had his own business in gardening and landscaping.  In March of 1996 he commenced relief work as a milk deliverer, and he says that this grew over time so that by 1997 he was working on a more or less…