Puleio v Olam Orchards Australia Pty Ltd - [2017] VSC 658

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION
PERSONAL INJURIES LIST

S CI 2016 03931

SANDRA PULEIO	Plaintiff
v
OLAM ORCHARDS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	ZAMMIT J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	26 October 2017
DATE OF RULING:	27 October 2017
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Puleio v Olam Orchards Australia Pty Ltd
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSC 658

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Mode of trial – Trial by jury or judge alone – Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 r 47.02 – Claim in negligence – Deceased worked on farm in Wemen in Victoria – Tractor allegedly rolled on deceased – Plaintiff deceased’s wife – Duty of care question arising from employment – Duty issue surrounding consumption of alcohol – Complexity of fact and legal issues – Potential for novel duty of care – Order directing trial without jury.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr T Tobin SC with Mr M Seelig	Ryan Legal
For the Defendant	Mr W R Middleton QC with Mr J Plunkett	Solicitor to the Transport Accident Commission

HER HONOUR:

This proceeding is listed for hearing in the Mildura circuit commencing on 30 October 2017. The circuit must be completed by 17 November 2017.

The defendant has given notice pursuant to r 47.02 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (‘the Rules’) that it requires a trial by jury. The plaintiff now seeks to dispense with this mode of trial and to have this proceeding determined by a judge sitting.

The parties have estimated that the case will take approximately 10 days to be heard before a jury. Monday 6 November and Tuesday 7 November 2017 are not sitting days in Mildura by reason of the Melbourne Cup public holiday. The Supreme Court has been allocated a court room in Mildura from 30 October to 17 November 2017. A second proceeding is listed in the circuit to be heard upon the completion of this case, and it has an estimate of four to five days. That proceeding is an expedited trial, which concerns amongst other things a plaintiff with a shortened life expectancy.

The plaintiff sought leave to file and serve a further amended statement of claim on 26 October 2017. That application was not opposed and leave was granted.

The nature of the claim

The defendant, Olam Orchards Australia Pty Ltd, employed Frank Puleio (‘the deceased’) to conduct work at an almond farm (‘the farm’) located at Wemen in Victoria. It is not disputed that on 27 August 2013 the deceased was working on the farm and was using a tractor connected by a power take off. While the deceased was working near the slasher on the farm, the slasher rolled onto him and caused traumatic injuries which resulted in his death. The plaintiff was at the time the deceased’s wife.

In dispute in this case are the circumstances surrounding the deceased’s death, liability (including ‘duty, breach and causation’)[1] and…

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 Puleio v Olam Orchards Australia Pty Ltd 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: [2017] VSC 658
Decision Date: 27 October 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Puleio v Olam Orchards Australia Pty Ltd is a case that arose in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the plaintiff, Mrs Puleio, as the widow of the deceased, brought a claim against the defendant, Olam Orchards Australia Pty Ltd, in respect of alleged negligence that resulted in the death of her husband, who was working on a farm in Wemen, Victoria. The deceased reportedly died when a tractor allegedly rolled on him while he was intoxicated. The dispute revolves around whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the deceased, and if so, whether this duty was breached.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the matter should proceed to trial before a jury or a judge alone, in light of the complex fact and legal issues presented. The court was required to consider whether the potential for a novel duty of care, as well as the consumption of alcohol by the deceased, warranted a trial by jury. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the issues were too complex for a jury to determine, as per the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 r 47.02.

In determining the mode of trial, the court examined the nature of the issues involved, including the potential for a novel duty of care and the deceased's consumption of alcohol. The court concluded that the complexity of the fact and legal issues, coupled with the potential for a novel duty of care, warranted a trial before a judge alone. The court found that the issues were too complex for a jury to determine, and thus ordered that the matter proceed to trial without a jury.

This decision highlights the importance of considering the complexity of issues when determining the mode of trial in negligence claims, and the potential for novel duty of care issues to impact this decision. The court's ruling in this matter will likely have implications for future cases involving similar fact and legal issues.

Orders