De Pasquale v Viet THAHN Bakery Pty Ltd - [2012] SADC 121

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil)
DE PASQUALE & ANOR v VIET THAHN BAKERY PTY LTD
[2012] SADC 121
Judgment of His Honour Judge Costello
27 September 2012
TORTS - NEGLIGENCE - CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
DAMAGES - MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT - MEASURE OF DAMAGES - PERSONAL INJURIES - LOSS OF EARNINGS AND EARNING CAPACITY
DAMAGES - GENERAL PRINCIPLES - GENERAL AND SPECIAL DAMAGES
Plaintiffs' claim for damages for personal injury - first plaintiff, a customer in the defendant's shop injured by slipping and falling on wet shop floor - whether defendant negiligent - Held: defendant negligent - damages assessed as follows:
FIRST PLAINTIFF - Non-Economic Loss - 15 points - $26,110; Past Economic Loss - $38,280. Interest on Past Economic Loss - $4,000; Past Loss of Superannuation - $4,000; Future Economic Loss - $45,000. Future Loss of Superannuation - $4,950; Past Gratuitous Assistance - $12,000; Interest on Past Gratuitous Assistance - $2,000; Future Gratuitous Assistance - $3,000. Future Medical Treatment - $6,500; Special Damages - $10,000. TOTAL: $155,840.00.
SECOND PLAINTIFF - Loss of Consortium - $3,000.
Civil Liability Act 1936, referred to.
Neindof v Junkovic (2005) 222 ALR 641; Modbury Triangle v Anzil (2005) 205 CLR 254; Ragnelli v David Jones (Adelaide) Pty Ltd and Anor (2004) 90 SASR 233; Drotem Pty Ltd v Manning [2000] NSWCA 320; Dibbins v Dibbins (1978) 80 LSJS 165; Medlin v SGIC (1995) 182 CLR 1; Chinner v Panagaris [1997] SASC 6476; Arthur Robinson (Grafton) Pty Ltd v Carter (1968) 122 CLR 649; Versace v Messer (1993) 172 LSJS 414, considered.

DE PASQUALE & ANOR v VIET THAHN BAKERY PTY LTD
[2012] SADC 121
Nature of Case

This is a claim for damages for personal injuries.
At about 9.00am on 20 July 2007 Mrs De Pasquale slipped and fell on a “puddle” of water whilst attending the defendant’s bakery shop in James Place Adelaide to purchase a bread roll.
She claims damages for physical and psychological injuries resulting in both economic and non-economic loss. Her husband, Mr De Pasquale claims damages for loss of consortium.
The defendant denies liability and asserts that if Mrs De Pasquale slipped and fell she did so outside its premises and in James Place. It also denies that (even if she fell as alleged) she sustained any serious injury as a result.
For the reasons which follow I find in favour of the plaintiffs and I have assessed damages for the first plaintiff in the sum of $155,840.00 and for the second plaintiff in the sum of 3,000.00.
Issues for Determination
The defendant accepts inter alia that on the day in question:
·it was carrying on the business of a bakery from James Place;
·it was an occupier of premises within the meaning of the Civil Liability Act 1936 (“the Act”); and
·the first plaintiff attended at its premises and purchased a bread roll.
The legal and factual issues in dispute and for determination are as follows:

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read De Pasquale v Viet THAHN Bakery Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2012] SADC 121
Decision Date: 27 September 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of De Pasquale v Viet THAHN Bakery Pty Ltd, the primary issue before the court was the extent of the damages to be awarded to the plaintiffs, both customers in the defendant's bakery, following an incident where the first plaintiff slipped and fell on a wet floor. The first plaintiff sustained injuries, and the second plaintiff claimed loss of consortium. The case was heard in a relevant Australian court, where the plaintiffs sought compensation for their respective injuries and losses. The court was tasked with determining the liability of the defendant in terms of negligence and the appropriate quantum of damages to be awarded to the plaintiffs, considering both economic and non-economic losses.

The legal issues central to the case included whether the defendant had acted negligently in maintaining the shop floor, and if so, to what extent the plaintiffs were entitled to damages for their injuries and losses. The court needed to assess the nature and extent of the plaintiffs' injuries, including both economic and non-economic damages, and to determine the appropriate measure of compensation. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether any contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiffs would affect the quantum of damages awarded.

The court found that the defendant was indeed negligent in failing to maintain a safe environment for customers, leading to the first plaintiff's injury. In terms of damages, the court meticulously assessed each element of the plaintiffs' claims. For the first plaintiff, the court awarded non-economic loss, past and future economic loss, superannuation loss, gratuitous assistance, medical treatment, and special damages. The total award for the first plaintiff was calculated to be $155,840. The second plaintiff was awarded $3,000 for loss of consortium. The court's decision reflected a detailed analysis of the plaintiffs' injuries, the extent of the defendant's liability, and the appropriate compensation to address the harm suffered by the plaintiffs.

The court's final orders included an award of $155,840 to the first plaintiff and $3,000 to the second plaintiff, reflecting the comprehensive assessment of their respective claims for damages.

Orders