Sartor v Bitton

Link copied
Case Copied 89 min read

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Sartor v Bitton [2019] NSWDC 723
Hearing dates: 17, 18, 19 July, 13 August, 11 October 2019
Date of orders: 04 December 2019
Decision date: 04 December 2019
Jurisdiction:Civil
Before: Russell SC DCJ
Decision:

(1)   Judgment for the second plaintiff against the defendants for $269,058.51.
(2)   Order the defendants to pay the second plaintiff’s costs as agreed or assessed.
(3)   Grant leave to approach my Associate if either party wishes to list the matter again before me to seek a different costs order.

Catchwords:

NEGLIGENCE – fishing charter vessel travelling through river bar – risk of suffering injury if large waves were encountered and passenger was not keeping a firm hold – risk unknown to an inexperienced person - passenger thrown to deck suffering injuries – need to provide a safety induction and to warn passengers of the dangers of the river bar – need to warn passengers to hold on to rails

 

NEGLIGENCE – Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) – ss 5B, 5D, 5E, 5F, 5G, 5H, 5I, 5J, 5L, 5M

DAMAGES – non-economic loss - past economic loss – future loss of earning capacity - Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) ss 13, 16
Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)
Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)
Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999
Partnership Act 1892 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Lormine Pty Ltd & Anor v Xuereb [2006] NSWCA 200
Motorcyling Events Australia Group Pty Ltd v Kelly [2013] NSWCA 361
Williams v Twynam Agricultural Group Pty Ltd & Anor [2011] NSWSC 1098
Texts Cited: Roads and Maritime Services Coastal Bar Safety Guide
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Robert Sartor (First Plaintiff)
Megan Short (Second Plaintiff)
Glynn James Bitton (First Defendant)
Julie Bitton (Second Defendant)
Representation:

Counsel:
R Royle (Plaintiffs)
G Smith (Defendants)

  Solicitors:
Shine Lawyers (Plaintiffs)
McInnes Wilson Lawyers (NSW) (Defendants)
File Number(s): 2018/191244

Judgment

Introduction

  1. Shortly after 6.00am on 17 April 2017 the second plaintiff Ms Megan Short, and her partner Mr Robert Sartor, boarded the “Nautikat”, a catamaran which was operated by the defendants Mr Glynn and Mrs Julie Bitton and skippered by the first defendant Mr Bitton. The plaintiffs had engaged the defendants to conduct an offshore fishing charter leaving from Yamba in northern New South Wales.

  2. The Nautikat proceeded along the Clarence River and commenced its crossing of the Yamba Bar. The vessel encountered three large waves. As the vessel met and crossed the third wave, Ms Short was thrown from her feet onto the deck of the vessel. She suffered injuries.

  3. This incident occurred about 16 minutes into the voyage. The hearing in relation to that relatively simple event generated 298 pages of transcript, 68 pages of written submissions, 1993 pages of documentary exhibits and 9 hours of video footage.

  4. The proceedings originally involved Mr Sartor as the first plaintiff and Ms Short as second plaintiff. However Mr Sartor’s action was settled and the hearing involved only the claim by Ms Short. Her claim was pleaded in…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Sartor v Bitton 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
[2019] NSWDC 723
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Sartor v Bitton involved a claim for damages by a passenger injured during a fishing charter trip on a vessel operated by the defendants. The incident occurred when the vessel traversed a river bar, resulting in the passenger being thrown to the deck and sustaining injuries. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were negligent in failing to provide adequate safety instructions and warnings regarding the potential hazards of crossing the river bar. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The court was tasked with determining whether the defendants breached their duty of care towards the plaintiff by failing to warn of the risks associated with the river bar crossing and by not providing a safety induction. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the plaintiff's injuries were a direct result of this alleged breach of duty. The court also needed to determine the appropriate quantum of damages to be awarded to the plaintiff for non-economic loss, past economic loss, and future loss of earning capacity.

The court found that the defendants did indeed owe a duty of care to the plaintiff, which included providing warnings and safety instructions. The court determined that the defendants failed to warn the plaintiff of the specific dangers of the river bar, which was unknown to an inexperienced person. This failure constituted a breach of duty, and the plaintiff's injuries were a direct result of this breach. The court awarded the plaintiff damages for non-economic loss, past economic loss, and future loss of earning capacity, totalling $269,058.51. The court also ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiff's costs and granted leave to approach the Associate for potential reconsideration of the costs order.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Judgment for the second plaintiff against the defendants for $269,058.51.

(2) Order the defendants to pay the second plaintiff’s costs as agreed or assessed.

(3) Grant leave to approach my Associate if either party wishes to list the matter again before me to seek a different costs order.

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.