Valeondis v Permanent Trustee Aust Ltd - [2008] SADC 143

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil)
VALEONDIS v PERMANENT TRUSTEE AUST LTD & ORS
[2008] SADC 143
Judgment of His Honour Judge Lovell
31 October 2008
TORTS - NEGLIGENCE - DANGEROUS PREMISES - INJURIES TO PERSONS ENTERING PREMISES - LIABILITY GENERALLY
Lift ceiling falling on courier driver – breach of standard of care.

DAMAGES - MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT - MEASURE OF DAMAGES - PERSONAL INJURIES - LOSS OF EARNINGS AND EARNING CAPACITY
Assessment of damages where plaintiff reasonably but unsuccessfully attempts to mitigate loss.
Wrongs Act Part 1B, ss 17C & 17D, referred to.
Neindorf v Junkovic 222 ALR 631; Wall & Lambe v Wall Unreported, Full Court of SA, 23 December 1998, S7017, per Lander J; Graham v Baker (1961) 106 CLR 340; Medlin v SGIC (1994-1995) 182 CLR 1, considered.

VALEONDIS v PERMANENT TRUSTEE AUST LTD & ORS
[2008] SADC 143
Overview

Mr Valeondis was a courier driver. He had worked for TNT Couriers for many years. On 22 August 2000 he attended at AAP Communications Services Pty Ltd on Level 2, 45 Pirie Street, Adelaide to collect a parcel. Having collected the parcel he took it to the ground floor of the building by means of the goods lift. As the lift travelled between the second level and the ground level the ceiling in the lift collapsed striking Mr Valeondis and injuring him. Mr Valeondis sued in negligence the building owner, the building manager and the business that had recently reinstalled the lift ceiling. Both liability and quantum were in dispute at trial.
Plaintiff’s background
The plaintiff is currently 58 years of age. He reached year nine at high school and left aged 15 to work on his father’s orchard at Mypolonga. As a young man he was a hard worker not only operating the orchard but also working at night for Ingham Chickens. He married Afroditi on 16 June 1973 and they have two children. In 1978 he moved to Adelaide and in 1981 he began working as a courier. Initially this was with Kwikasair. Kwikasair was taken over by TNT and he continued with TNT on the same terms and conditions. He was working with TNT at the time of the accident as a courier driver.
Credibility of the plaintiff
It was generally accepted by the defendants that the plaintiff had suffered an injury in the lift on 22 August 2000. However there was much criticism of the evidence of the plaintiff in relation to his version of how the accident occurred and also the extent of his injuries. There was merit in some of the criticisms.
Mr Harms, who appeared as counsel for the plaintiff, conceded that, in relation to the question of liability, a lot of his client’s evidence was “reconstruction”. I agree. During the course of cross-examination Mr Frayne took Mr Valeondis through a number of applications that he had made, after the accident, for finance. His answers, at least in relation to…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Valeondis v Permanent Trustee Aust Ltd 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: [2008] SADC 143
Decision Date: 31 October 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Valeondis v Permanent Trustee Aust Ltd was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. Valeondis, the plaintiff, sought damages for personal injuries sustained when a lift ceiling fell on him while he was delivering mail to the defendant's premises. The case primarily revolved around issues of negligence and the duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff as a visitor to their premises.

The primary legal issues before the court included whether the defendant breached their duty of care to the plaintiff by failing to maintain the lift ceiling in a safe condition and whether the injuries sustained by the plaintiff were a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the breach. Additionally, the court had to determine the appropriate measure of damages, particularly focusing on the plaintiff's loss of earnings and earning capacity due to the injuries.

The court found that the defendant did indeed breach their duty of care by allowing the lift ceiling to be in a dangerous condition, which led to the plaintiff's injuries. The court held that the injuries were a foreseeable result of this breach. In assessing the damages, the court considered the plaintiff's loss of earnings and earning capacity, taking into account medical evidence and expert opinions. The court concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to damages that reflected his loss of future earning capacity, which was significantly impacted by the injuries sustained in the incident.

The court ordered the defendant to pay damages to the plaintiff for his loss of earnings and earning capacity, as well as for other related expenses. The precise amount of the damages was determined based on the evidence presented and the legal principles applied by the court.

Orders