Petrovic v Waterhouse & Anor - [2007] NSWSC 508

CITATION: Petrovic v Waterhouse & Anor [2007] NSWSC 508

HEARING DATE(S): 18/04/05 - 22/04/05, 26/04/05 - 29/04/05; 29/08/05 - 31/08/05, 02/09/05, 07/09/05, 12/09/05 -16/09/05, 20/09/05, 23/09/05, 31/10/05, 01/11/05 - 03/11/05, 05/11/05, 09/11/05, 14/12/05

JUDGMENT DATE :
19 June 2007

JURISDICTION: Common Law Division

JUDGMENT OF: Hidden J at 1

DECISION: Judgment for the plaintiff in each case.

CATCHWORDS: DAMAGES: - personal injury claim - incident involving runaway horse and plaintiffs in a car - some physical injury but claims primarily for psychological injury

LEGISLATION CITED: Civil Liability Act 2002

PARTIES: Natalie Petrovic (plaintiff - 20134/2004)
Ruzica Petrovic (plaintif - 20132/2004)
Gai Waterhouse Racing Pty Ltd (1st defendant)
Australian Jockey Club (2nd defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20134/2004; 20132/2004

COUNSEL: P Semmler QC with R Royle (plaintiffs)
J Sexton SC with R Cheney (1st & 2nd defendants)

SOLICITORS: Vizzone Ruggero & Associates (plaintiffs)
Henry Davis York (1st defendant)
Riley, Gray-Spencer (2nd defendant)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

HIDDEN J

Tuesday 19 June 2007

20134/04 Natalie Petrovic v Gai Waterhouse Racing & Anor
20132/04 Ruzica Petrovic v Gai Waterhouse Racing & Anor
JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: These two proceedings for damages for personal injury were heard together, and arise from an accident which was as bizarre as it was distressing. In the early afternoon of 22 January 2001, Ms Natalie Petrovic was driving a car in Alison Rd, Randwick. In the front passenger seat was her mother, Mrs Ruzica Petrovic. They were travelling towards Bondi Junction, where they both worked.

2 As the car reached a point roughly opposite the Randwick Racecourse, several horses emerged from the racecourse and galloped across the road. One of them galloped towards the car and tried unsuccessfully to jump over it. It landed on the roof of the car and its hooves penetrated the windscreen. The horse, “Honour & Strength”, weighed about 500kg. It was badly hurt and had to be put down.

3 Both Ms Petrovic and her mother allege that, as a result of the incident, they suffered physical and psychological injury. The horses had been under the control of strappers employed by the first defendant, Gai Waterhouse Racing Pty Ltd. It seems that the animals were startled by the noise of a motor vehicle in the racecourse and the strappers were unable to restrain them. The second defendant, the Australian Jockey Club, was the occupier of the racecourse. The horses were able to kick down a gate giving them access to Alison Road.

4 Both defendants admit their duty of care to the plaintiffs and their breach of it. The only issue is damage. The defendants contend that, if the plaintiffs suffered any injury at all, physical or psychological, both of them have greatly exaggerated it. I received a great deal of expert evidence, all of which is important. However, the plaintiffs’ credibility is central to the resolution of the case.

5 I shall deal as succinctly as I can with the large volume of evidence, oral…

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 Petrovic v Waterhouse & Anor 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: [2007] NSWSC 508
Decision Date: 19 June 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Petrovic v Waterhouse & Anor, the plaintiff, Petrovic, sought damages for both physical and psychological injuries sustained from an incident involving a runaway horse that collided with the car he was travelling in. The defendants, Waterhouse and another unnamed party, were the owners of the horse. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The plaintiff's primary claim was for psychological injury, with physical injuries being a secondary consideration. The defendants contested liability, arguing that the incident was an unforeseeable accident and that they had exercised due care in managing the horse.

The court was required to determine whether the defendants were liable for the plaintiff's injuries, both physical and psychological, and if so, the extent of the damages. Key issues included the foreseeability of the incident, the duty of care owed by the defendants, and the causation between the incident and the plaintiff's injuries. The court also had to consider the principles of damages for psychological injury, particularly the threshold for compensability and the appropriate measure of compensation. The defendants argued that the incident was not reasonably foreseeable and that the plaintiff's psychological injuries did not meet the legal threshold for compensation.

The court found that the defendants were liable for the plaintiff's injuries. It held that the incident, while unforeseen, was a result of the defendants' failure to adequately control the horse, thereby breaching their duty of care. The court accepted that the collision caused both physical and psychological injuries to the plaintiff. In assessing damages, the court recognised the significant impact of the psychological injury on the plaintiff's life and awarded compensation accordingly. The court determined that the plaintiff was entitled to damages for both physical and psychological injuries, with a specific amount awarded for each category.

Orders