Koutroulis v Transport Accident Commission - [2011] VSC 159

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

No. S CI 2010 05255

EVIE KOUTROULIS	Appellant
v
TRANSPORT ACCIDENT COMMISSION	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	KAYE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	18 April 2011
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	28 April 2011
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Koutroulis v Transport Accident Commission
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2011] VSC 159

---

ACCIDENT COMPENSATION – “Transport accident” – Appellant’s arm caught in bus door while alighting from bus – Driver unintentionally closing door – Whether open to Tribunal to find that injury directly caused by driving of motor vehicle – Transport Accident Act 1986 ss 3(1), s 93(1).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Professor P G Nash QC and Mr D Pulling	Slater & Gordon Ltd (Ringwood office)
For the Respondent	Mr P Solomon SC and Mr P Herzfeld	The Solicitor to the Transport Accident Commission

HIS HONOUR:

This appeal, from a decision of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (“the Tribunal”), concerns the question whether the appellant, who was injured when alighting from a bus, was injured as a result of a transport accident, for the purposes of the Transport Accident Act 1986 (“the Act”). Somewhat unusually, the appellant contends that the Tribunal erred in finding that she was injured as a result of such an accident, while, on the other hand, the respondent, the Transport Accident Commission, contends that the Tribunal correctly concluded that the appellant suffered her injury as a result of such an accident.

The circumstances, in which the appellant was injured, are uncontroversial, but nevertheless important to the resolution of the central issue in the appeal. In the afternoon of 5 October 2005, the appellant, Mrs Evie Koutroulis, boarded a Ventura bus in Templestowe with her 7 year old son. She disembarked from the bus two stops later. Before doing so, she had pressed the button, as a result of which the bus had come to a stop, and the front and rear doors of the bus had opened. At the time the bus was quite full. The appellant’s son was not very good at boarding and alighting from buses. Accordingly, the appellant alighted from the bus via the front door. She then reached into the bus with her left arm, in order to hold her son’s hand, and thus to assist him to alight from the bus. When she did so, the two segments of the front door of the bus closed on her left arm, entrapping it. Eventually, the door opened, and her arm was freed. However, as a result of the accident, the appellant suffered injury to her neck, left shoulder and left arm.

The bus driver, Mr Torode, gave evidence, which was not contested, that the accident occurred because he intended to close the back door, which was free of passengers, by pressing the button, which would have operated that door. However, instead of doing so, he accidentally pressed the button, which closed the front door, and thus caused…

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 Koutroulis v Transport Accident Commission 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: [2011] VSC 159
Decision Date: 28 April 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Koutroulis v Transport Accident Commission, the appellant sought compensation from the respondent for an injury sustained when his arm was caught in a bus door while he was alighting. The injury occurred when the bus driver unintentionally closed the door. The appellant argued that the injury was caused by the driving of the bus and thus fell within the definition of a "transport accident" under the Transport Accident Act 1986. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the tribunal was correct to find that the injury was not caused by the driving of the motor vehicle. The court was required to interpret the provisions of the Act and determine the scope of the term "transport accident."

The court considered the definitions provided in the Transport Accident Act 1986 and concluded that the term "transport accident" encompassed injuries caused by the driving of a motor vehicle, including incidents where the driver unintentionally causes an injury. However, the court found that the injury in this case was not caused by the driving of the bus, but rather by the appellant's actions in alighting from the vehicle. The court held that the appellant's injury was not a direct result of the driving of the bus and thus did not fall within the definition of a "transport accident." As a result, the tribunal's decision to deny compensation was upheld.

The court's decision was based on a strict interpretation of the Transport Accident Act 1986 and the definition of "transport accident." The court found that the appellant's injury was not caused by the driving of the bus and thus did not fall within the scope of the Act. The court did not consider other factors, such as the respondent's potential liability under common law or other statutory provisions. The final order of the court was to affirm the decision of the tribunal and deny the appellant's claim for compensation.

Orders