Rushton v Woolworths Ltd

Case [2016] QDC 110


DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Rushton v Woolworths Ltd [2016] QDC 110

PARTIES:

RUSHTON, Carol
(plaintiff)

v

WOOLWORTHS LIMITED
(ACN 000 014 675)
(defendant)

FILE NO:

D 126 of 2013

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Maroochydore

DELIVERED ON:

20 May 2016

DELIVERED AT:

District Court at Maroochydore

HEARING DATE:

4-6 May 2015, 17 April 2015

JUDGE:

Long SC DCJ

ORDER:

Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $14,917.12

CATCHWORDS:

PERSONAL INJURY – ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES – Where the plaintiff was impacted by a trolley that was pushed by the defendant’s employee – Where the plaintiff suffers injury to her left hip, knee and ankle – Where the plaintiff makes a claim for damages for personal injury – Where the defendant admits liability for the incident – Where the plaintiff has an underlying arthritic condition to her knee – Where injuries accelerate the underlying degenerative condition of knee and precipitate consequences in her hip

PERSONAL INJURY – GRATUITOUS CARE – Where the plaintiff’s husband performs domestic services to his wife’s particularity – Whether the services performed by the plaintiff’s husband were “necessary” pursuant to s 59(1)(a) of the CLA – Whether there was a “need” for the services pursuant to s 59(1)(b) of the CLA – Whether the need or necessity for services is assessed  objectively

CASES:

Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd v Haleluka [2012] NSWCA 343

CSR Ltd v Eddy (2005) 226 CLR 1

Downes v AffinityHealth Pty Ltd [2016] QCA 129

Griffiths v Kirkemeyer (1977) 139 CLR 161

Kriz v King [2007] 1 Qd R 327

Luppino v Estate of Collins [2012] QSC 363

Malec v JC Hutton (1990) 169 CLR 638

March v Stramere (1991) 171 CLR 506

Middleton v Melbourne Tramway & Omnibus Co Ltd (1913) 16 CLR 572

Purkess v Crittenden (1965) 114 CLR 164

Shaw v Menzies & Anor [2011] QCA 197

Van Gervan v Fenton (1992) 175 CLR 327

Watts v Rake (1960) 108 CLR 158

LEGISLATION:

Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld), ss 11, 11(1), 12, 61, 62, 59, 59(1)(a), 59(1)(b), 59(1)(c), 59(3)(a), 60(3)
Civil Liability Regulation 2003 (Qld), Schedules 3, 4, 6A,
Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), s 15, 15(2), 15(3)

COUNSEL:

TA Nielsen for the plaintiff

J McClymont for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Lynch & Associates Lawyers for the plaintiff

DLA Piper Australia for the defendant

Introduction

  1. The plaintiff, who was born on 12 March 1947, claims damages for personal injuries as a consequence of an incident which occurred when she was shopping in the defendant’s supermarket at Tewantin, on 20 May 2011 and when she was impacted on her left side by a trolley that was being pushed or manoeuvred by an employee of the defendant.

  1. In her evidence, the plaintiff described being hit (with tremendous force that knocked [her] down the aisle) with the consequence of pain on her whole left side.[1]  She described that trolley as being “enormous” and that at 5 feet 9 inches she was not able to “see over or around it”[2] and that…

Continue reading Rushton v Woolworths Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Rushton v Woolworths Ltd [2016] QDC 110
Case
[2016] QDC 110
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Rushton v Woolworths Ltd involved a plaintiff who sustained injuries from a collision with a shopping trolley pushed by an employee of the defendant. The plaintiff claimed damages for personal injury, which included injuries to her left hip, knee, and ankle, and the defendant admitted liability. The plaintiff had an underlying arthritic condition in her knee, and the injuries sustained in the incident accelerated the degenerative condition of her knee and caused further issues in her hip. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate amount of damages to be awarded to the plaintiff for her injuries, including any gratuitous care provided by her husband.

The central legal issues before the court were the assessment of damages for personal injury and the determination of whether the care provided by the plaintiff's husband qualified as gratuitous care under the relevant statutory provisions. The court had to consider the nature and extent of the plaintiff's injuries, their impact on her overall health, and the role of the underlying arthritic condition in exacerbating the injuries. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the services provided by the plaintiff's husband were necessary and whether there was a need for such services under the statutory criteria.

In reaching its decision, the court examined the medical evidence and the impact of the injuries on the plaintiff's life. The court found that the injuries sustained in the incident had significantly affected the plaintiff's mobility and quality of life, particularly in relation to her knee and hip. The court also considered the role of the underlying arthritic condition and how it interacted with the injuries. Regarding the gratuitous care, the court determined that the services provided by the plaintiff's husband were necessary and met the statutory criteria for gratuitous care. The court awarded damages to the plaintiff, taking into account the totality of her injuries and the care provided by her husband.

The final orders of the court were that judgment was entered in favour of the plaintiff in the sum of $14,917.12, which represented the total damages awarded for the personal injury and the gratuitous care provided by the plaintiff's husband. The court's decision provided a comprehensive assessment of the plaintiff's injuries and the impact on her life, as well as a clear application of the statutory provisions relating to gratuitous care.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $14,917.12

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.