Dallas v Denton Building - [2003] NSWSC 833

CITATION: Dallas v Denton Building [2003] NSWSC 833

HEARING DATE(S): 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11 & 12 June 2003

JUDGMENT DATE:
11 September 2003

JURISDICTION:
Common Law

JUDGMENT OF: Master Harrison

DECISION: (1) Enter judgment that the defendant pay to the plaintiff the sum of $2,423,071.12; (2) The defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs as agreed or assessed.

CATCHWORDS: Personal injury: assessment - paraplegic

LEGISLATION CITED: Workers' Compensation Act - ss 151K; 151M

CASES CITED: Diamond v Simpson (No 1) [2003] NSWCA 67
Jongen v CSR Ltd (1992) Aust Torts Reports 81-192
Malec v Hutton (1990) 169 CLR 638
State of NSW v Moss [2000] NSWCA 133
Sullivan v Gordon (1999) 47 NSWLR 319
Van Gervan v Fenton (1992) 175 CLR 327

PARTIES :

Shannon Keith Dallas
(Plaintiff)
P & M Denton Building Constructions Pty Ltd
(Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20232/2001

COUNSEL:
Mr A J Bartley SC with Mr J H Gibson
(Plaintiff)
Mr P Blacket SC with Mr D Priestley
(Defendant)

SOLICITORS:
Mr Ian Chipchase
Stacks
(Plaintiff)
Mr Andrew Kemp
Holman Webb
(Defendant)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

MASTER HARRISON

THURSDAY, 11 SEPTEMBER 2003
20232/2001 - SHANNON KEITH DALLAS v

P & M DENTON BUILDING
CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD

JUDGMENT (Personal injury: assessment - paraplegic)

1 MASTER: The plaintiff seeks damages for personal injuries sustained in an accident which occurred on 31 May 2000. Whilst working on the construction of a roof he fell approximately 4.5 metres to the ground and was rendered a paraplegic. The defendant is P & M Denton Building Constructions Pty Ltd (Denton Building) who was the occupier of Lot 5 Honeyeater Crescent, Blaxland (the premises) and had the care, control and management of the roofing work being undertaken on the premises and was also the plaintiff’s employer. The defendant has admitted liability. Contributory negligence is not in issue. On the first day of the hearing, the cross claims were settled.

Background

2 The plaintiff was born on 16 August 1977 in Sydney and grew up in the Hills area of Sydney. He was aged 22 years when this catastrophic accident occurred. He is now 26 years old. The plaintiff’s parents separated when he was three years of age. The plaintiff resided with his mother but maintained contact with his father. His family life was not a happy one. He described himself as “an angry young man” at the age of 15 years, but then found religion. Religion turned his life around.

3 Throughout high school the plaintiff played basketball. He was 6’ 1” and a bit and was the team’s centre. His team were the State champions. He played soccer for six years and sat on the New South Wales bench for two games in the junior competition. He played golf with his friends every fortnight (t 93.1-20). During the plaintiff’s school years, he demonstrated admirable athletic prowess. It was at this time that the plaintiff developed a passion for surfing and from time to time…

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 Dallas v Denton Building

Details

AGLC: Dallas v Denton Building [2003] NSWSC 833
Case: [2003] NSWSC 833
Decision Date: 11 September 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Dallas v Denton Building, the plaintiff, Dallas, sought damages for personal injury sustained as a result of a fall in a building owned by the defendant, Denton Building. The incident occurred when Dallas, a maintenance worker, slipped and fell in a stairwell while performing his duties. He suffered severe injuries that rendered him paraplegic. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Dallas sought compensation for his injuries, claiming that Denton Building was negligent in maintaining the stairwell, thereby contributing to his accident.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether Denton Building owed a duty of care to Dallas and, if so, whether they had breached that duty. Additionally, the court had to determine the extent of Dallas's injuries and assess the appropriate amount of damages to be awarded. Denton Building argued that they had taken reasonable steps to ensure the safety of their premises and that Dallas's injuries were due to his own negligence. They also contended that Dallas had not taken reasonable care for his own safety.

The court found that Denton Building did owe a duty of care to Dallas, given the relationship between the parties and the nature of the premises. The court determined that Denton Building had failed to maintain the stairwell adequately, which constituted a breach of this duty. The court accepted medical evidence that Dallas's injuries were severe and permanent, confirming his paraplegic status. After considering all factors, the court awarded Dallas a substantial sum in damages, recognising the profound impact of his injuries on his life.

Orders