District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Krickovic v The Star Pty Limited [2019] NSWDC 594 Hearing dates: 17, 18, 19, 20 & 26 September 2019 Date of orders: 25 October 2019 Decision date: 25 October 2019 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: Judge Levy SC Decision: 1. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $150,144.15;
2. The defendant is to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings on the ordinary basis.Catchwords: TORTS – negligence – occupiers liability – slip and fall injury in casino premises – polished marble floor rendered slippery by presence of clear liquid – whether due to negligence of occupier – whether there was contributory negligence on plaintiff’s part; DAMAGES – assessment of claimed heads of damage Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), s 5B, s 5C, s 5D, s 16
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 56
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 60
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), Sch 7 cl 5(c)Cases Cited: Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna (1987) 162 CLR 479, [1987] HCA 7
Cupac v Cannone [2015] NSWCA 114
Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar (2011) 243 CLR 588; [2011] HCA 21
Daw v Toyworld (NSW) Pty Ltd [2001] NSWCA 25
Graham v Baker (1961) 106 CLR 340; [1961] HCA 48
Larson v Commissioner of Police [2004] NSWCA 126
Majkic v Bonnano [2008] NSWCA 253
Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705; [2001] NSWCA 305
Manly Municipal Council v Skene [2002] NSWCA 385
Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission (1995) 182 CLR 1; [1995] HCA 5
Mt Isa Mines Ltd v Pusey (1970) 125 CLR 383; [1970] HCA 60
Penrith City Council v Parks [2004] NSWCA 201
State of NSW v Moss (2000) 54 NSWLR 536; [2000] NSWCA 133
Strong v Woolworths Ltd (2012) 246 CLR 182, [2012] HCA 5
Vaccaro v MLC Limited [2016] NSWDC 85
Vairy v Wyong Shire Council [2005] HCA 62; (2005) 223 CLR 442Category: Principal judgment Parties: Radomir Krickovic (Plaintiff)
The Star Pty Limited (Defendant)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Ms M Campbell (Plaintiff)
Mr C Purdy (Defendant)
Brydens (Plaintiff)
Moray & Agnew (Defendant)
File Number(s): 2018/225915 Publication restriction: None
Judgment
Table of Contents
Nature of case
[1]
Claim
[2] – [4]
Defence
[5] – [10]
Issues
[11]
Evidence overview
[12] – [14]
Credibility and reliability of testimony
[15] – [25]
Facts not in dispute
[26] – [86]
The premises
[27]
Staffing and equipment on the premises
[28] – [54]
Events preceding the plaintiff’s fall
[55] – [58]
Accident circumstances
[59] – [64]
Injuries and initial treatment
[65] – [68]
Plaintiff’s pre-accident health
[69] – [72]
Plaintiff’s pre-accident work history
[73] – [75]
Post-accident medical and allied reviews
[76]
Resolution of conflicting medical opinions
[77] – [80]
Disabilities that remain
[81] – [82]
Work effects
[83] – [85]
Mitigation
[86]
Plaintiff’s most likely circumstances but for his fall
[87] – [90]
Expert opinions of Mr Cauduro
[91] – [93]
Continue reading Krickovic v The Star Pty Limited
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Krickovic v The Star Pty Limited [2019] NSWDC 594
- Case
- [2019] NSWDC 594
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to determine whether the defendant was negligent in failing to prevent the floor from becoming slippery and whether the plaintiff had contributed to the accident by not taking reasonable steps to avoid the hazard. The court also needed to assess the extent of the plaintiff’s injuries and the appropriate amount of damages to be awarded.
The court found that the defendant was negligent in maintaining the casino premises, as the polished marble floor should have been regularly inspected and maintained to prevent it from becoming slippery. The court concluded that the clear liquid on the floor was a hazard that the defendant should have identified and addressed. Regarding contributory negligence, the court determined that while the plaintiff had not been entirely careless, she could have taken more precautions to avoid the slippery area. However, this did not absolve the defendant of their primary responsibility for the unsafe conditions. The court awarded damages, considering the nature and extent of the plaintiff's injuries, along with the economic and non-economic losses suffered.
The court ordered that judgment be entered in favour of the plaintiff and awarded her $150,144.15 in damages. The defendant was also required to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings on the ordinary basis.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $150,144.15;
2. The defendant is to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings on the ordinary basis.
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.