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
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.
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.
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
- AGLC
- Polwarth v Woolworths Ltd [2017] QDC 133
- Case
- [2017] QDC 133
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.