JUDGE:	ZAMMIT J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	19 February to 7 March 2019
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	20 May 2019
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Bucic v Arnej Pty Ltd
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VSC 330

---

NEGLIGENCE – Occupier’s liability – Self-employed brick cleaner fell from scaffolding – Deficiencies in scaffolding – Where pre-existing injuries – Whether pre-existing injuries aggravated by fall – Whether contributory negligence – Damages – Griffiths v Kerkemeyer (1977) 139 CLR 161; Malec v J C Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638 applied – Wrongs Act 1958 Pts IIA and X – Occupational Health and Safety Regulations 2007 Part 3.5.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	J B Richards QC with D Dealehr	Carbone Lawyers
For the Defendant	S A Smith SC	Moray & Agnew

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 1
Factual background............................................................................................................................ 2
The plaintiff’s life and work.................................................................................................. 2
Pre-accident medical history................................................................................................. 3
The accident of 30 October 2007........................................................................................... 4
Post-accident medical history............................................................................................... 8

The claim............................................................................................................................................ 11
The pleadings........................................................................................................................ 11
The case at trial...................................................................................................................... 13

Applicable principles....................................................................................................................... 14
Occupier’s liability............................................................................................................... 14
Statutory duty under the Regulations............................................................................... 15
Causation................................................................................................................................ 17
Damages ................................................................................................................................ 19

The trial and witnesses..................................................................................................................... 23
For the plaintiff...................................................................................................................... 24
For the defendant.................................................................................................................. 24
The plaintiff’s credibility..................................................................................................... 25

The evidence as to the fall............................................................................................................... 26
The evidence as to the plaintiff’s medical conditions................................................................. 28
The plaintiff’s evidence........................................................................................................ 28
Vesna Bucic’s evidence........................................................................................................ 34
Daniel Bucic’s evidence....................................................................................................... 36
Marco Bucic’s evidence........................................................................................................ 37
Dr Sulava’s evidence............................................................................................................ 37
Mr Turner’s evidence........................................................................................................... 41
Dr Sheriff’s evidence............................................................................................................. 45
Dr Kennedy’s evidence........................................................................................................ 47
Mr Haig’s evidence............................................................................................................... 52
Dr Stockman’s evidence....................................................................................................... 54
Mr Karamanos’ evidence..................................................................................................... 56
Dr Kaplan’s evidence........................................................................................................... 56
Dr Waluk’s evidence............................................................................................................ 57

The evidence as to damages............................................................................................................ 58
General damages................................................................................................................... 59
Economic loss........................................................................................................................ 61
Attendant care........................................................................................................................ 65
Medical expenses.................................................................................................................. 68

Submissions....................................................................................................................................... 68
Plaintiff’s submissions......................................................................................................... 69
Defendant’s submissions..................................................................................................... 74

Consideration.................................................................................................................................... 79
Circumstances of the fall...................................................................................................... 79
Breach of duty........................................................................................................................ 81
Contributory negligence...................................................................................................... 83
Volenti defence...................................................................................................................... 85
Causation................................................................................................................................ 86
General damages................................................................................................................... 94
Economic loss........................................................................................................................ 95
Attendant care...................................................................................................................... 100
Medical and like expenses................................................................................................ 101
Summary as to damages.................................................................................................... 102

Conclusion....................................................................................................................................... 103

HER HONOUR:

Introduction

On 30 October 2017 the plaintiff, Marin Bucic, was working as a self-employed brick cleaner on a building site at 789 Old Calder Highway, Keilor (‘the premises’), when he fell approximately four-and-a-half metres from a raised scaffolding bay onto a pile of bricks and suffered serious injury. The defendant, Arnej Pty Ltd, was the sole-trader responsible for the construction of the house. The scaffolding was erected by a hire company which was joined as a third party to this proceeding, but which settled with the defendant on the day fixed for trial.

The plaintiff pleads breach of occupier’s liability under Part IIA of the Wrongs Act 1958 (‘the Act’). The plaintiff alleges the defendant failed to take reasonable care to prevent injury to entrants by…

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 Bucic v Arnej Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Bucic v Arnej Pty Ltd [2019] VSC 330
Case: [2019] VSC 330
Decision Date: 20 May 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Bucic v Arnej Pty Ltd was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiff, Mr. Bucic, was a self-employed brick cleaner who fell from a piece of scaffolding while working on a job site owned by the defendant, Arnej Pty Ltd. The plaintiff claimed that the fall was due to deficiencies in the scaffolding and sought damages for injuries sustained. The defendant, in turn, argued that the plaintiff’s pre-existing injuries were aggravated by the fall and that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent.

The court was tasked with determining several legal issues. These included whether the scaffolding's deficiencies constituted a breach of duty on the part of the defendant, whether the plaintiff's pre-existing injuries were aggravated by the fall, and whether the plaintiff's negligence contributed to the incident. Additionally, the court had to consider the applicability of the Wrongs Act 1958 and the Occupational Health and Safety Regulations 2007 in assessing liability and damages.

In its reasoning, the court found that Arnej Pty Ltd was indeed liable for the scaffolding's deficiencies, which constituted a breach of their duty of care. The court determined that the fall from the scaffolding aggravated the plaintiff's pre-existing injuries, and thus the defendant was liable for the exacerbation of those injuries. The court also found that the plaintiff's contributory negligence, specifically his failure to take reasonable care for his own safety, did not absolve the defendant of liability. The court applied the principles from Griffiths v Kerkemeyer and Malec v J C Hutton Pty Ltd to establish the extent of damages attributable to the defendant's negligence. The court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff compensation for the injuries sustained and exacerbated due to the fall.

Orders