Williamson v Catholic Homes INC. - [2009] WADC 81

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: WILLIAMSON -v- CATHOLIC HOMES INC. [2009] WADC 81

CORAM: MAZZA DCJ

HEARD: 19-21, 24-28 NOVEMBER, 2 DECEMBER 2008

DELIVERED : 29 MAY 2009

FILE NO/S: CIV 292 of 2006

BETWEEN: ANTOINETTE MARIE WILLIAMSON
Plaintiff
AND
CATHOLIC HOMES INC.
Defendant

Catchwords:

Tort- Personal injury - Work accident - Plaintiff allegedly injured by a door closing on to her wrist - Whether injury occurred - Whether defendant was negligent - Provisional assessment of damages - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Claim dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: Mr T H Offer
Defendant: Mr D R Clyne

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: Stephen Browne Lawyers
Defendant: Greenland Brooksby

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Hanna‑Pauley v AMP Shopping Centres Pty Ltd [2007] WASCA 174
New South Wales v Fahy [2007] HCA 20
Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW v Dederer (2007) 234 CLR 330
Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40

MAZZA DCJ:

Introduction

On 24 July 2004, the plaintiff was employed by the defendant as a carer of the elderly at the Castledare Retirement Village ("Castledare"). While moving an empty patient hoist through a doorway, she claims that she was injured by a door closing on to her left wrist and, as a result, she has suffered injury and loss. The plaintiff alleges that the injury occurred as a result of the defendant's negligence and that it is liable to pay damages. Her claim as to both negligence and the amount of any damages she might recover is disputed by the defendant. The defendant accepts that it owed the plaintiff a duty of care. The defendant's case is that the plaintiff was not injured but, if she was, it was not negligent. In any event, the defendant alleges, the damages sought by the plaintiff are excessive.
I have decided that the plaintiff was injured on 24 July 2004 and that she suffered a very minor soft tissue injury to her left wrist. However, the injury was not caused by the defendant's negligence and so she is not entitled to damages. Had she succeeded in her negligence claim she would have recovered $7,500. What follows are my reasons for coming to these conclusions.
I will deal first with the issue of negligence and then with my provisional assessment of damages.

The negligence claim

Undisputed facts

The plaintiff was employed by the defendant at Castledare on a part‑time basis as a multi‑skilled carer on or about 28 March 2003. The plaintiff's duties included the washing, grooming, dressing and toileting of the residents. From time to time, the performance of these duties meant that the plaintiff would have to push a hoist to and from a resident's room.
On 24 July 2004, the plaintiff was working at Castledare. The nursing home, was at that time, divided into two areas. One area, which was for residents with high care needs, was called Balmoral and the other area which was specially for dementia residents, was…

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.

Continue reading Williamson v Catholic Homes INC.

Details

AGLC: Williamson v Catholic Homes INC. [2009] WADC 81
Case: [2009] WADC 81
Decision Date: 29 MAY 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Williamson v Catholic Homes INC, the plaintiff, Williamson, sued the defendant, Catholic Homes INC, for injuries she allegedly sustained when a door closed on her wrist while she was working at the defendant's premises. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit Court, where the plaintiff sought compensation for her injuries. The defendant denied liability, arguing that the plaintiff's injuries were not caused by the door closing and that they were not negligent in any way. The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff's injuries were caused by the door closing, whether the defendant was negligent in any way, and if so, to make a provisional assessment of damages.

The court examined the evidence presented by both parties and considered the circumstances of the incident. The plaintiff provided medical evidence of her injuries and claimed that the door closing on her wrist caused her to suffer a sprain and subsequent chronic pain. The defendant, on the other hand, argued that the plaintiff's injuries were not caused by the door closing and that the plaintiff had not taken reasonable care for her own safety. The court found that the plaintiff's injuries were indeed caused by the door closing, and the defendant was negligent in failing to take reasonable steps to prevent such an incident from occurring. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to compensation for her injuries and made a provisional assessment of damages.

The court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff compensation for her injuries, including medical expenses and lost wages. The defendant was also ordered to pay interest on the compensation amount from the date of the accident until the date of judgment. The court held that the defendant's negligence in failing to take reasonable steps to prevent the incident from occurring was the cause of the plaintiff's injuries. The court found that the plaintiff had taken reasonable care for her own safety and that the defendant's negligence was the sole cause of her injuries. The court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings.

Orders