Guest v NRMA Insurance Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 35 min read
GUEST -v- NRMA INSURANCE LIMITED [2002] WADC 115
Last Update:  26/06/2002
GUEST -v- NRMA INSURANCE LIMITED [2002] WADC 115
Jurisdiction: DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA   Citation No: [2002] WADC 115
Case No: CIV:2638/2000   Heard: 19, 20 & 21 NOVEMBER 2001 & 24 APRIL 2002
Coram: VIOL DCJ   Delivered: 20/06/2002
Location: PERTH   Supplementary Decision:
No of Pages: 21   Judgment Part: 1 of 1
Result: Plaintiff's claim dismissed - Provisional assessment of damages - Plaintiff entitled to maximum allowable under s 93F of Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981
[Click here for Judgment in Adobe Acrobat Format ]
Parties: ELIZABETH GUEST
NRMA INSURANCE LIMITED

Catchwords: Negligence Employer's liability Safety of premises System of cleaning Employee falling on floor Whether breach of duty of care by employer Cause of plaintiff's fall Provisional assessment of damages Effect and operation of s 93F of Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 considered
Legislation: Occupiers' Liability Act 1985
Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (as amended)

Case References: Bicknell v Australian Telecommunications Commission (1993) 10 WAR 373
Dell v Dalton (1991) 23 NSWLR 528
Drakos v Woolworths (SA) Ltd (1991) 56 SASR 431
Hendrie v Rusli [2000] WASCA 249
Southgate v Waterford (1990) 21 NSWLR 427
Wylde v Aristondo, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 970359; 23 July 1997

Andjelic v Marsland (1996) 135 ALR 543
Astley v Austrust Ltd (1999) 197 CLR 1
Bowen v Tutte [1990] A Tort Rep 81-043
Jones v Persal & Co [2000] QCA 386
Kocis v SE Dickens Pty Ltd [1996] A Tort Rep 81-382
Kocis v SE Dickens Pty Ltd [1998] 3 VR 408
Nelson v BHP Coal Pty Ltd [2000] QCA 505
Roberts v White [1999] NSWCA 12
Stevens v Head (1992) 176 CLR 433
Wylie v The ANI Corporation Ltd [2000] QCA 314

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

                  IN CIVIL
LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : GUEST -v- NRMA INSURANCE LIMITED [2002] WADC 115 CORAM : VIOL DCJ HEARD : 19, 20 & 21 NOVEMBER 2001 & 24 APRIL 2002 DELIVERED : 20 JUNE 2002 FILE NO/S : CIV 2638 of 2000 BETWEEN : ELIZABETH GUEST
                  Plaintiff

                  AND

                  NRMA INSURANCE LIMITED
                  Defendant




Catchwords:

Negligence - Employer's liability - Safety of premises - System of cleaning - Employee falling on floor - Whether breach of duty of care by employer - Cause of plaintiff's fall - Provisional assessment of damages - Effect and operation of s 93F of Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 considered


Legislation:

Occupiers' Liability Act 1985
Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (as amended)


(Page 2)

Result:

Plaintiff's claim dismissed - Provisional assessment of damages - Plaintiff entitled to maximum allowable under s 93F of Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981

Representation:

Counsel:


    Plaintiff : Mr M E Herron
    Defendant : Mr W M Schwikkard


Solicitors:

    Plaintiff : Gibson & Gibson
    Defendant : Jackson McDonald


Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Bicknell v Australian Telecommunications Commission (1993) 10 WAR 373
Dell v Dalton (1991) 23 NSWLR 528
Drakos v Woolworths (SA) Ltd (1991) 56…
CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Guest v NRMA Insurance 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
[2002] WADC 115
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Guest, brought a claim against NRMA Insurance Ltd, the employer, alleging negligence in the safety of the premises which led to the plaintiff falling on the floor. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The plaintiff argued that the employer had a duty of care to ensure the premises were safe and that a breach of this duty caused the fall. The employer, on the other hand, contended that the fall was due to the plaintiff's own actions and that they had taken reasonable steps to maintain a safe environment.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the employer had breached their duty of care to the plaintiff and if so, whether this breach caused the plaintiff's fall. Additionally, the court had to consider the effect and operation of section 93F of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 on the provisional assessment of damages. The court needed to determine if the plaintiff was entitled to a provisional assessment of damages and if the statutory limit applied.

The court found that the employer had not breached their duty of care to the plaintiff as they had implemented a system for cleaning the premises, which was reasonably adequate. The court held that the plaintiff's fall was not caused by any inadequacy in the cleaning system but rather by the plaintiff's own actions. Consequently, the employer was not liable for the plaintiff's injuries. Regarding the provisional assessment of damages, the court determined that the plaintiff was entitled to the maximum allowable amount under section 93F of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim against NRMA Insurance Ltd. The plaintiff was entitled to a provisional assessment of damages, with the amount capped by section 93F of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981.

Orders

Orders of the court

Plaintiff's claim dismissed - Provisional assessment of damages - Plaintiff entitled to maximum allowable under s 93F of Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981

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.