RASO -v- RASO & ANOR [2007] WADC 53
| DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2007] WADC 53 | |
| Case No: | CIV:2088/2005 | 29 JANUARY, 30 JANUARY 31 JANUARY & 1 FEBRUARY 2007 | |
| Coram: | MCCANN DCJ | 20/04/07 | |
| PERTH | |||
| 51 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Judgment for the plaintiff Contributory negligence in degree of 10 per cent Damages of $928,520.91 awarded | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | FRANCESCO RASO GIORGIO RASO TERESA RASO |
Catchwords: | Torts Negligence Personal injuries Contributory negligence Damages Assessment Traumatic amputation of non-dominant hand of young apprentice |
Legislation: | Evidence Act 1906, s 79C(1) Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984, s 19 Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981, s 93E(3)(a), 93F(1) |
Case References: | Commissioner for Railways v Halley (1978) 20 ALR 409 Commissioner for Railways v Ruprecht (1979) 142 CLR 563 Fitzpatrick v Robert Norman Job and Wendy Barbara Job T/As Jobs Engineering & Ors [2007] WASCA 63 Fox v Wood (1981) 148 CLR 438 Hanlon v Hanlon Enterprises Pty Ltd & Anor [2004] NSWSC 930 Insurance Commission of Western Australia v Leigh [2001] WASCA 232 Jongen v CSR Ltd & Anor (1992) Aust Tort Reports 81-192 McLean v Tedman (1984) 155 CLR 306 Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission (1995) 182 CLR 1 Podrebersek v Australian Iron and Steel Pty Ltd (1985) 59 ALJR 492 Sungravure Pty Ltd v Meani (1964) 110 CLR 24 |
JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CIVIL
- 31 JANUARY & 1 FEBRUARY 2007
- Plaintiff
AND
GIORGIO RASO
First defendant
TERESA RASO
Second defendant
Catchwords:
Torts - Negligence - Personal injuries - Contributory negligence
Damages - Assessment - Traumatic amputation of non-dominant hand of young apprentice
Legislation:
Evidence Act 1906, s 79C(1)
Occupational Safety and Health Act 1984, s 19
(Page 2)
Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981, s 93E(3)(a), 93F(1)
Result:
Judgment for the plaintiff
Contributory negligence in degree of 10 per cent
Damages of $928,520.91 awarded
Representation:
Counsel:
Plaintiff : Mr J Staude
First defendant : Mr T Lampropoulos
Second defendant : Mr T Lampropoulos
Solicitors:
Plaintiff : Donna Percy & Co
First defendant : Kott Gunning
Second defendant : Kott Gunning
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Commissioner for Railways v Halley (1978) 20 ALR 409
Commissioner for Railways v Ruprecht (1979) 142 CLR 563
Fitzpatrick v Robert Norman Job and Wendy Barbara Job T/As Jobs Engineering & Ors [2007] WASCA 63
Fox v Wood (1981) 148 CLR 438
Hanlon v Hanlon Enterprises Pty Ltd & Anor [2004] NSWSC 930
Insurance Commission of Western Australia v Leigh [2001] WASCA 232
Jongen v CSR Ltd & Anor (1992) Aust Tort Reports 81-192
McLean v Tedman (1984) 155 CLR 306
Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission (1995) 182 CLR 1
Podrebersek v Australian Iron and Steel Pty Ltd (1985)…
Continue reading Raso v Raso
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Raso v Raso [2007] WADC 53
- Case
- [2007] WADC 53
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Raso v Raso involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Raso, and the defendant, also Raso, regarding personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff. The plaintiff, a young apprentice, suffered a traumatic amputation of his non-dominant hand while working under the defendant's supervision. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiff sought damages for the injuries, while the defendant argued contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff.
The primary legal issues that the court had to address were the extent of the defendant's liability for the plaintiff's injuries and the degree of contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. The court was also required to determine the appropriate amount of damages to be awarded to the plaintiff. The court considered evidence from both parties, including expert medical and vocational evidence, to assess the severity of the plaintiff's injuries and the impact on his future earning capacity.
The court found that the defendant was liable for the plaintiff's injuries, as they had breached their duty of care by failing to provide a safe working environment and adequate supervision. However, the court also found that the plaintiff was contributory negligent to the extent of 10 per cent. The court determined that the plaintiff's injuries were severe, and his future earning capacity had been significantly impacted. After considering all the evidence, the court awarded the plaintiff damages of $928,520.91, reduced by 10 per cent for contributory negligence. The final order of the court was judgment for the plaintiff, with damages of $928,520.91 awarded, reduced by 10 per cent for contributory negligence.
The primary legal issues that the court had to address were the extent of the defendant's liability for the plaintiff's injuries and the degree of contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. The court was also required to determine the appropriate amount of damages to be awarded to the plaintiff. The court considered evidence from both parties, including expert medical and vocational evidence, to assess the severity of the plaintiff's injuries and the impact on his future earning capacity.
The court found that the defendant was liable for the plaintiff's injuries, as they had breached their duty of care by failing to provide a safe working environment and adequate supervision. However, the court also found that the plaintiff was contributory negligent to the extent of 10 per cent. The court determined that the plaintiff's injuries were severe, and his future earning capacity had been significantly impacted. After considering all the evidence, the court awarded the plaintiff damages of $928,520.91, reduced by 10 per cent for contributory negligence. The final order of the court was judgment for the plaintiff, with damages of $928,520.91 awarded, reduced by 10 per cent for contributory negligence.
Orders
Orders of the court
Judgment for the plaintiff. Contributory negligence in degree of 10 per cent. Damages of $928,520.91 awarded
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.