Gialouris v Surfside Buslines Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 33 min read

District Court

New South Wales

Case Title: Gialouris v Surfside Buslines Pty Ltd
Medium Neutral Citation: [2014] NSWDC 223
Hearing Date(s): 21 and 22 July 2014
Decision Date: 19 September 2014
Jurisdiction: Civil
Before: Gibson DCJ
Decision:

(1) Judgment for the plaintiff for the sum of $1,442.80.
(2) Costs reserved with liberty to apply.
(3) Exhibits retained for 28 days.

Catchwords: TORT - personal injury - assessment of damages - causation - plaintiff suffers injury when a bus in which she and her husband are passengers brakes suddenly - plaintiff seeks medical assistance for minor injuries but later claims serious shoulder injury - accounts given by the plaintiff and her husband to police, ambulance and hospital differ signficantly from the plaintiff's evidence in court - defendant's expert witness changes opinion as to causation after receiving information about the earlier inconsistent statements - defendant calls evidence from the bus driver which is consistent with the plaintiff's initial version of events - reconciling different versions by a plaintiff of an accident - reliability of statements made to health professionals - role of credit findings - assessment of damages
Legislation Cited: Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 42.35
Cases Cited: Container Terminals Australia v Huseyin [2008] NSWCA 320
Davis v Council of the City of Wagga Wagga [2004] NSWCA 34
Ferguson v McDonalds [2005] NSWCA 401
Gulic v O'Neill [2011] NSWCA 361
Hill v Richards [2011] NSWCA 291
Kappadoukas v Fransepp Pty Ltd [2006] NSWCA 366
Makita (Aust) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705
Mason v Demasi [2009] NSWCA 227
Mastronardi v State of New South Wales [2009] NSWCA 270
McGlen-McLeod v Galloway [2011] NSWDC 163
McGlen-McLeod v Galloway [2012] NSWCA 368
Nominal Defendant v Kostic [2007] NSWCA 14
Tchen v Nominal Defendant [2010] NSWCA 245
Whalan v Kogarah Municipal Council [2007] NSWCA 5
Texts Cited: -
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Plaintiff: Rena Gialouris
Defendant: Surfside Buslines Pty Ltd
Representation
- Counsel: Plaintiff: Dr S C Thorton
Defendant: Ms C J Allan
- Solicitors: Plaintiff: Schreuder Partners
Defendant: McInnes Wilson Lawyers
File Number(s): 2013/283635
Publication Restriction: None

JUDGMENT

The plaintiff's pleaded claim for damages

  1. The plaintiff brings proceedings pursuant to Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld) for injuries suffered on 6 September 2011 when the plaintiff, while a passenger in the defendant's bus, suffered injuries when the bus driver suddenly applied the brakes.

  2. According to the original statement of claim in these proceedings filed on 19 September 2013, the plaintiff's injuries were suffered when she was "thrown heavily forwards striking the glass screen in front of her". This is consistent with her description of her injuries when she was taken to the Robina Hospital, where her injuries were described as:

    "[The plaintiff] was forced forward and [the plaintiff's] left eyebrow collided with the glass at the front of the bus, [the plaintiff] had a small laceration to the L eyelid which had stopped bleeding prior to QAS arrival. No neck or back pain."

  3. The…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Gialouris v Surfside Buslines 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
[2014] NSWDC 223
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Gialouris v Surfside Buslines Pty Ltd involved the plaintiff, who claimed damages for personal injuries sustained during a sudden braking incident on a bus. The plaintiff and her husband were passengers when the bus driver applied the brakes abruptly, causing the plaintiff to sustain injuries that she later claimed were serious, including a shoulder injury. The matter was heard in a lower court in Australia, where the plaintiff sought compensation for her injuries.

The court was tasked with determining several legal issues, including the causation of the plaintiff's injuries, the reliability of the accounts provided by the plaintiff and her husband to various health professionals and emergency services, and the assessment of damages. The court had to reconcile the differing versions of the accident provided by the plaintiff and her husband and determine the extent to which these accounts could be relied upon. Additionally, the court had to consider the role of credit findings in assessing the credibility of the parties' evidence and the impact of these findings on the assessment of damages.

The court found that the plaintiff's accounts of the accident provided to emergency services and health professionals were inconsistent with her evidence in court. The defendant's expert witness changed their opinion on causation after being made aware of these inconsistencies. However, the court gave significant weight to the evidence provided by the bus driver, which was consistent with the plaintiff's initial version of events. Ultimately, the court found that the plaintiff's injuries were caused by the bus's sudden braking and awarded her damages in the sum of $1,442.80. The court reserved costs with liberty to apply and ordered that exhibits be retained for 28 days.

In summary, the court found in favour of the plaintiff, awarding her compensation for her injuries, but made a reservation on costs and instructed the retention of exhibits for a specified period.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Judgment for the plaintiff for the sum of $1,442.80.

(2) Costs reserved with liberty to apply.

(3) Exhibits retained for 28 days.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.