Liljana Velevska v Woolworths Limited ACN 000 014 675 - [2002] ACTSC 52

Liljana Velevska v Woolworths Limited ACN 000 014 675 [2002] ACTSC 52 (7 June 2002)

CATCHWORDS

PERSONAL INJURIES – Liability – shopper hit by falling goods in store

DAMAGES – Assessment – soft tissue injuries – no issue of principal

Evidence Act s 135

Griffiths v Kerkemeyer (1977) 193 CLR 161
Ramsay v Watson (1960) 108 CLR 462

No. SC 877 of 1996

Coram: Master T. Connolly
Supreme Court of the ACT
Date: 7 June 2002

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE       )
  )          No. SC 877 of 1996
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )

BETWEEN:LILJANA VELEVSKA
Plaintiff

AND:WOOLWORTHS LIMITED ACN 000 014 675
Defendant

ORDER

Coram:  Master T. Connolly
Date:  7 June 2002
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

Judgment for the Plaintiff in the sum of $88,335.80

Defendant to pay plaintiff’s costs

This is a claim for damages for personal injuries arising from an incident which occurred at the Woolworths store at the Belconnen Mall in the Australian Capital Territory on the evening of 24 March 1996. The plaintiff was attending the store to do some shopping, and says that she was in an aisle which contained a freezer cabinet on one side, and the refrigerated goods cabinets on another side. She was looking down into the freezer cabinets when she says she was struck about the neck shoulders and legs by falling plastic containers of milk. She observed that a pallet of milk in crates being loaded into the refrigerated goods cabinet had toppled over onto her.

Liability was in issue, but on the evidence before me I am satisfied that the accident occurred in the circumstances described by the plaintiff. It was strongly put to the plaintiff that she could not have been struck about the neck or shoulders because crates were only ever loaded three high. Mr Schuster was at the time an employee of Woolworths and it was his job to restock the refrigerated goods cabinet. He said that while he could not precisely recall how high the pallet of crates was this evening, they could have been five high. He said the pallets were “three wide, three deep and as high as you want.” He agreed that they could be five high, but thought that he would have removed the top layer before this incident. He agreed in cross-examination, however, that this would have involved an awkward lift across the middle row.

He says that on this evening he took a pallet loaded with crates of milk from the cool room out to the refrigerated goods area and proceeded to re-stock the cabinets with milk. He said that the pallet would normally be in three rows, three crates deep, and could be three to five crates high. The pallet, which would be very heavy, was moved by a mechanical device which lifted the pallet some inches from the ground, and it could then be moved. He said that the accident occurred as he was unloading the crates of milk. The pallet was still…

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.

Continue reading Liljana Velevska v Woolworths Limited ACN 000 014 675

Details

AGLC: Liljana Velevska v Woolworths Limited ACN 000 014 675 [2002] ACTSC 52
Case: [2002] ACTSC 52
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Liljana Velevska v Woolworths Limited ACN 000 014 675 involved a claim for damages for personal injuries arising from an incident at a Woolworths store in Belconnen Mall, Australian Capital Territory. The plaintiff, Liljana Velevska, alleged she was struck by falling plastic containers of milk while shopping. The dispute hinged on the liability of Woolworths and the extent of the plaintiff's injuries and their impact on her ability to work. The court had to determine whether Woolworths was negligent and to what extent the plaintiff's injuries were caused by the incident, as well as the appropriate amount of damages.

The key legal issues were whether Woolworths was negligent in causing the accident, the extent and nature of the plaintiff's injuries, and the assessment of damages for the injuries sustained. The plaintiff argued that she suffered from ongoing neck pain, limited ability to work, and psychological effects due to the accident. Woolworths contested liability and the extent of the injuries and damages claimed. The court needed to evaluate the credibility of the plaintiff's evidence, the medical reports, and the video evidence to determine the extent of the injuries and the resulting disability.

The court found that Woolworths was negligent in the handling of the pallet of milk crates, which led to the plaintiff being struck. However, the court was not convinced that the plaintiff's claims of ongoing significant disability were substantiated. The medical evidence showed that while the plaintiff had sustained soft tissue injuries and aggravation of an underlying degenerative condition, the extent of her disability was exaggerated. The video evidence showed that the plaintiff was capable of performing her part-time work without significant restriction, which was inconsistent with the medical reports. The court concluded that the plaintiff had exaggerated her complaints of pain and limitation of movement. Although the plaintiff had experienced some restriction in her ability to work immediately after the accident, this had diminished over time. The court awarded damages for the injuries sustained but found that the plaintiff had exaggerated the extent of her disability. The total award was $88,335.80, which included general damages, past economic loss, future economic loss, and past gratuitous care, with the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs.

Orders