Radovanovic v Brisbane City Council

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Radovanovic v Brisbane City Council [2001] QSC 264

PARTIES:

BOGDANA RADOVANOVIC
(plaintiff)
v
BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL
(defendant)

FILE NO:

10722 of 1996

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

25 July 2001

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATES:

9 and 10 July 2001

JUDGE:

Muir J

ORDER:

Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $63,521.22 together with costs to be assessed on the standard basis on the applicable District Court scale

CATCHWORDS:

DAMAGES –  MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT - MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE – WHERE ECONOMIC OR FINANCIAL LOSS – CARELESS ACTS OR OMMISSIONS – where plaintiff bus driver suffered injury when bus drove over pothole – whether defendant Council negligent in failing to repair pothole

ACI Metal Stamping and Spinning Pty Ltd v Boczulik (1964) 110 CLR 372, cited
Bankstown Foundry Pty Ltd v Braistina (1985-1986) 160 CLR 301, cited
Chapman v Hearse (1961) 106 CLR 11, cited
Hamilton v Nuroof (WA) Pty Ltd (1956) 96 CLR 18, cited
McLean v Telman (1984) 155 CLR 306, cited
Mt Isa Mines v Pusey (1971) 125 CLR 383, cited
Nagle v Rottnest Island Authority (1992-93) 177 CLR 423, cited
Raimondo v State of South Australia (1979) 23 ALR 513, considered

COUNSEL:

P A Hastie for the plaintiff
M T O’Sullivan for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Murphy Schmidt for the plaintiff
McInnes Wilson for the first defendant

The matters in issue

1. The plaintiff claims to have exacerbated a pre-existing degenerative spinal condition on 1 February 1996 when a bus being driven by her in the course of her employment by the first defendant Brisbane City Council drove over a large pot hole in a service road outside the Council’s Mount Gravatt Bus Depot. The essence of the plaintiff’s case is that the Council –

(a)        was negligent in failing to repair the pot hole;

(b) was in breach of its duty under section 28 of the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 (“the Act”) to ensure the safety of the plaintiff whilst she was at work.

1. The Council denies negligence and that it breached the Act. It alleges that it took reasonable precautions and exercised proper diligence to prevent a contravention of the Act by, relevantly, implementing appropriate road maintenance systems.

The plaintiff’s pre-accident history

1. The plaintiff was born on 11 January 1954 in Yugoslavia and was educated there to the equivalent of grade 6. She migrated to Australia with her parents in August 1974. After working for a seafood supplier and as an assistant cook, she commenced work as a bus driver with the Council at the beginning of 1980.

1. In about 1979, Dr Wilson, orthopaedic surgeon, performed a laminectomy and level 2 dissectomy on the plaintiff in order to alleviate leg pain from which she suffered at the time. That operation appears to have achieved its…