Polwarth v Woolworths Ltd

Case [2017] QDC 133


DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Polwarth v Woolworths Ltd [2017] QDC 133

PARTIES:

RAYMOND THOMAS JOHN POLWARTH

(Plaintiff)

v

WOOLWORTHS LTD

(Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

4055 of 2015

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

19 May 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

13 – 15 February 2017

JUDGE:

Searles DCJ

ORDER:

1.   The Defendant pay the Plaintiff $11,111.62 in damages.

CATCHWORDS:

PERSONAL INJURY – ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES – where the Plaintiff suffered personal injury in a slip and fall accident – where the Plaintiff’s injury aggravated the pre-existing condition – whether the Plaintiff is entitled to damages for gratuitous care and assistance

PERSONAL INJURY – ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES – where the Plaintiff suffered personal injury in a slip and fall accident – where the Plaintiff’s injury aggravated the pre-existing condition – assessment of damages

COUNSEL:

J Sorbello for the Plaintiff

R Morton for the Defendant

SOLICITORS:

Morton & Morton Solicitors for the Plaintiff

HBA Legal for the Defendant

Claim

Preliminary Issue

The Defendant’s Evidential Burden of Proof

Past and Future Gratuitous Care and Assistance

Prior to the Incident

After the Incident

Surveillance Evidence

Threshold under section 59(1) of the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld)

The evidence of the Plaintiff as to the need for gratuitous care

Evidence of Ms Stephens as to the gratuitous care actually provided

Evidence of Ms Aitken

Evidence of Dr Ganko

Conclusion regarding section 59 of the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld)

General Damages

Special Damages

Summary

Claim

  1. By Claim and Statement of Claim filed 16 October 2015 (‘Claim’), the Plaintiff claims damages for personal injuries and other loss caused by the negligence and/or breach of common law duty by the Defendant, and resulting from a slip and fall incident at the Defendant’s premises at Pialba, Hervey Bay on 20 February 2014 (‘Incident’). The Plaintiff alleges that while shopping, he slipped and fell after stepping on a grape on the floor. As a result he alleges that he a soft tissue injury to his right knee (‘the Injury’).[1]

    [1]Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim filed 16 October 2015, paragraph 6.

  1. At the time of the Incident, the Plaintiff was 51 years old. Relevantly, when he was around 20 years of age, he was involved in a motor cycle accident resulting in serious injuries including the amputation of his right leg approximately six inches[2] below the knee, a fractured leg above his amputation, a fractured pelvis and a lower back injury. He has been in receipt of Disability Support Pension since 1990.[3]

    [2]T1.16.39.

    [3]Occupational Therapy Report of Ms Vanessa Aitken dated 9 October 2015, page 5.

  1. At the time of the Incident on 20 February 2014, the Plaintiff was wearing a prosthetic limb under his right knee. He alleges his left foot slid forward causing him to fall directly onto his right knee ‘stump’ with his prosthetic leg bent underneath him.[4] Liability is admitted by the Defendant and contributory negligence is not pursued.[5] No claim is made by…

Continue reading Polwarth v Woolworths Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Polwarth v Woolworths Ltd [2017] QDC 133
Case
[2017] QDC 133
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Polwarth v Woolworths Ltd involved a plaintiff who claimed damages following a slip and fall incident at a defendant's store, which aggravated a pre-existing condition. The plaintiff sought compensation not only for the injuries sustained from the accident but also for the need for gratuitous care and assistance due to the aggravation of the pre-existing condition. The matter was heard and determined in the court.

The central legal issues addressed by the court were whether the plaintiff was entitled to damages for gratuitous care and assistance, given the aggravation of a pre-existing condition by the accident, and the appropriate assessment of damages in light of these factors. The court had to consider both the immediate impact of the accident and its exacerbation of the plaintiff's pre-existing condition.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the plaintiff was indeed entitled to damages for gratuitous care and assistance as a result of the aggravation of the pre-existing condition by the accident. The court carefully assessed the evidence regarding the plaintiff's injuries and the additional care required due to the aggravation of the pre-existing condition. After considering all relevant factors, the court determined that the plaintiff was entitled to a total of $11,111.62 in damages. This sum reflected the court's consideration of both the immediate and long-term impacts of the accident on the plaintiff's life.

The court ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff the sum of $11,111.62 in damages. This order was based on a comprehensive assessment of the plaintiff's injuries, the exacerbation of the pre-existing condition, and the need for additional care and assistance.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Defendant pay the Plaintiff $11,111.62 in damages.

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.