Theodorakakis v Telstra Corporation Limited

Link copied
Case Copied 47 min read
CITATION: Theodorakakis v Telstra Corporation Limited [2005] NSWDC 11
HEARING DATE(S): 23-25 February 2005
 
JUDGMENT DATE: 

28 April 2005
JURISDICTION: Civil
JUDGMENT OF: Rein SC DCJ
DECISION: See [73].
CATCHWORDS: Plaintiff fell over on a footpath due to presence of pit lid which was not flush with pavement - Hazard had been identified by council 14 months earlier but not rectified - Claim against council and party responsible for the installation of the pit lid - Whether defect was obvious - Burden of proof - Duty of care and breach of duty - Relevance of budgetary constraints on council - Whether s 45 of the Civil Liability Act applied - Contributory negligence - Quantum
LEGISLATION CITED: Civil Liability Act 2002, ss 16, 45
Roads Act 1993, s 4
CASES CITED: Blatch v Archer (1774) 98 ER 969
Brodie v Singleton Shire Council; Ghantous v Hawkesbury Shire Council (2001) 206 CLR 512; [2001] HCA 29
Burwood Council v Byrnes [2002] NSWCA 343
Council of the Municipality of Waverly v Lodge [2001] NSWCA 439
Georgopoulos v Telstra Corporation Ltd [2004] NSWCA 266
Graham v Baker (1961) 106 CLR 340
Hampton Court Ltd v Crooks (1957) 97 CLR 367
Hastings Council v Giese [2003] NSWCA 178
K-Mart Australia Ltd v McCann [2004] NSWCA 283
Lake Macquarie City Council v Bottomley [1999] NSWCA 28
Lake Macquarie City Council v Holt [2004] NSWCA 305
Lombardi v Holroyd City Council [2002] NSWCA 252
Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission (1995) 182 CLR 1
Newcastle City Council v Mason [2004] NSWCA 108
Newcastle City Council v McShane [2004] NSWCA 425
Penrith City Council v Parks [2004] NSWCA 201
Richmond Valley Council v Standing [2002] NSWCA 359
Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales v McGuinness [2002] NSWCA 210
Ryde City Council v Saleh [2004] NSWCA 219
Ryde Council v Smith [2003] NSWCA 57
Sutherland Shire Council v Henshaw [2004] NSWCA 386
Telstra Corporation Ltd v Smith (1998) Aust Torts Reports 81-487
Temora Shire Council v Stein [2004] NSWCA 236
Turnbull v Alm [2004] NSWCA 173
Waverly Municipal Council v Wagner [2002] NSWCA 10
Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40
PARTIES: Maria Theodorakakis (Plaintiff)
Telstra Corporation Limited (First Defendant)
Port Stephens Council (Second Defendant)
FILE NUMBER(S): 654/03
COUNSEL: Ms Norton SC; Mr Khandhar (Plaintiff)
Mr J Ryan (First Defendant)
Mr Gambi (Second Defendant)
SOLICITORS: Brydens Law Office (Plaintiff)
Henry Davis York (First Defendant)
DLA Phillips Fox (Second Defendant)

JUDGMENT

1 The Plaintiff in this case, who was born on 5 December 1966 and is now 38 years of age, was injured when she fell whilst walking on a footpath on Shoal Bay Road, New South Wales. There is no dispute that she suffered injuries on 18 January 2002 as a result of the fall – a spiral comminuted fracture of the left ankle of both the tibia and the fibula – or that the ankle had to be fixed with plates and screws. She also suffered superficial burns to her buttocks because the…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Theodorakakis v Telstra Corporation Limited 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
[2005] NSWDC 11
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff in Theodorakakis v Telstra Corporation Limited suffered injury when he tripped over a pit lid on a footpath that was not flush with the pavement. The incident occurred despite the council having identified the hazard fourteen months prior but failing to rectify it. The plaintiff initiated legal action against both the council and Telstra, the party responsible for the pit lid's installation. The court's task was to determine whether the defect was obvious, the burden of proof, the existence and breach of a duty of care, the relevance of budgetary constraints on the council, the applicability of section 45 of the Civil Liability Act, the issue of contributory negligence, and the appropriate quantum of damages.

The court considered whether the defect was obvious and whether the council's budgetary constraints were relevant to their duty of care. It was held that the defect was not obvious and that budgetary constraints did not absolve the council from its duty of care. The court also examined the burden of proof and whether section 45 of the Civil Liability Act applied, which concerns the assessment of damages in cases of contributory negligence. The court found that the plaintiff had not met the burden of proving a breach of duty on the part of the defendant, and therefore the claim failed. The court also ruled that contributory negligence applied, reducing the potential damages recoverable by the plaintiff.

Telstra was found not liable for the plaintiff's injuries. The court determined that the council had failed to exercise reasonable care in maintaining the footpath, and therefore was liable for the plaintiff's injuries. However, due to the contributory negligence of the plaintiff, the damages were reduced accordingly. The final orders of the court included that Telstra was not liable for any damages, the council was liable for damages reduced by the plaintiff's contributory negligence, and specific details of the quantum of damages were to be determined in accordance with the court's findings.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [73].

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.