Sauer v Australian Capital Territory

SAUER v AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
[2007] ACTSC 18 (20 March 2007)

NEGLIGENCE – personal injury - occupiers’ liability – public hospital – glass panel in external door – complying with Australian Standard at time of construction – Standard amended – glass no longer compliant at date of injury - whether obligation to replace glass to meet changed standard

Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna (1987) 162 CLR 479
Hackshaw v Shaw (1984) 155 CLR 614
Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40
Jones v Bartlett (2000) 205 CLR 166
Graham Barclay Oysters Pty Ltd v Ryan (2002) 211 CLR 540
Woods v Multi-Sport Holdings Ltd (2002) 208 CLR 460
Van Der Sluice v Display Craft Pty Ltd [2002] NSWCA 204 (9 July 2002, unreported)
Thompson v Woolworths (Queensland) Pty Ltd (2005) 221 CLR 234
Ridis v Strata Plan 10308 (2005) 63 NSWLR 449
The Commonwealth of Australia v O’Callaghan [2001] WASCA 276
Cardone v Trustees Of The Christian Brothers [1994] ACTSC 85

No. SC 581 of 2000

Supreme Court of the ACT
Judge:             Master Harper

Date:              20 March 2007

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No. SC 581 of 2000
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )

BETWEEN:SCOTT SAUER

Plaintiff

AND:AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Defendant

ORDER

Judge:  Master Harper
Date:  20 March 2007
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. Judgment be entered for the defendant.

1. The plaintiff brings this action for damages for personal injury against the Australian Capital Territory as occupier of the Canberra Hospital at Garran. The plaintiff suffered severe injuries to his forearms when his body struck a panel of glass in an external door which constituted the main entry to Building 6 at the hospital on 1 December 1998. Building 6 is an administration building, about three stories in height. The plaintiff’s wife worked at the pay office on the third floor. The plaintiff had come into the building to talk to his wife, and was leaving when the incident occurred.

1. The plaintiff was born on 27 November 1971. He was 27 at the date of the accident and is now 35. He and his wife Karen had been married for about four years. They had separated a little over a year before the accident. Karen had been working at Building 6 at the hospital for nearly four years by the time of the accident, and the plaintiff had visited her there on many previous occasions.

1. The plaintiff’s case is that the defendant’s breach of its duty of care to him arose out of two static elements of the door and the floor just inside it. The floor was of brick tiling with a somewhat shiny surface, consistent with having been coated with a clear floor paint or wax, although the evidence does not go so far as to identify the coating. Set into the floor and flush with it, just inside the door, was a hinge-slatted mat 920 mm x 615 mm, described as typical for use in public buildings, set in…