DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: | Rushton v Woolworths Ltd [2016] QDC 110 |
PARTIES: | RUSHTON, Carol v WOOLWORTHS LIMITED |
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 |
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) |
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
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.
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
- AGLC
- Rushton v Woolworths Ltd [2016] QDC 110
- Case
- [2016] QDC 110
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.