Markovic v Transfield Services (Australia) Pty Limited

CITATION:	Markovic v Transfield Services (Australia) Pty Limited [2006] NSWDC 70
HEARING DATE(S):	2-5 May, 29 August 2006
JUDGMENT DATE:	19 October 2006
JUDGMENT OF:	Rein SC DCJ
DECISION:	Verdict and judgment for the defendant.
CATCHWORDS:	NEGLIGENCE - Plaintiff injured in slip on washroom floor - No breach of duty of care by building manager established - Quantum - Long term injury and economic loss as a result of accident not established
LEGISLATION CITED:	Civil Liability Act 2002
CASES CITED:	Burnie Port Authority v General Jones Pty Ltd (1994) 179 CLR 520 Crimmins v Stevedoring Industry Finance Committee (1999) 200 CLR 1; [1999] HCA 59 Czatyrko v Edith Cowan University (2005) 214 ALR 349 Kondis v State Transport Authority (1984) 154 CLR 672 Maricic v Dalma Formwork (Australia) Pty Ltd [2006] NSWCA 174 TNT Australia Pty Ltd v Christie (2003) 65 NSWLR 1; [2003] NSWCA 47 Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40
PARTIES:	Ranko Markovic (Plaintiff) Transfield Services (Australia) Pty Limited (Defendant)
FILE NUMBER(S):	2438/04
COUNSEL:	Mr C Heazlewood (Plaintiff) Mr R Gambi (Defendant)
SOLICITORS:	Beilby Poulden Costello (Plaintiff) Phillips Fox (Defendant)

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: The plaintiff’s claim arises out of an accident suffered by him on 15 June 2001 at 320 Liverpool Street Darlinghurst when, in the course of his employment with Telstra Corporation Ltd (“Telstra”) he slipped and fell on a wet washroom floor that he had stepped on. The premises in which the washroom was located were owned by Telstra. As a result of that accident, the plaintiff claims that he suffered a number of injuries, predominantly to his back, and he claims various heads of damage including non-economic loss, past and future economic loss, and out of pocket expenses. Mr C Heazlewood of counsel appears for the plaintiff, and Mr R Gambi of counsel for the defendant, Transfield Services Australia Pty Limited (“Transfield”). I received detailed written submissions from both counsel after transcript had been obtained.

2 The plaintiff’s claim is brought in negligence against Transfield. The following particulars of negligence are relied upon:

(a) failing to maintain and repair the urinal;

(b) failing to inspect or properly inspect facilities utilised by employees of Telstra;

(c) failing to devise a system or proper system of cleaning;

(d) failing to properly clean and maintain the floors on the premises;

(e) failing to maintain a system or proper system of cleaning and inspection of the floors on the premises;

(f) failing to take appropriate action to rectify the defective urinal once notified;

(g) exposing the plaintiff to a risk of injury of which it knew or ought to have known;

(h) failing to warn the plaintiff of the slippery floor;

(i) failing to erect barriers to prevent employees walking upon the said slippery floor;

(j) res ipsa loquitur.

3 In essence the plaintiff claims that Transfield failed to repair an allegedly defective lever on the water pipe above the urinal and/or failed to have an appropriate system of cleaning or inspection in…