What happened
The plaintiff attended the salon in July 2017 for her child's haircut and injured her right ankle while leaving, requiring surgery. Persistent pain and restricted ankle movement affected attempts to return to employment and manage domestic tasks.
The issues
The judgment assessed quantum rather than deciding which feature of the entrance established negligence. It required the Court to distinguish the effects of the injury from pre-existing mental health difficulties, assess remaining work capacity and allow for possible arthritis and further surgery.
The court's decision
The Court found the plaintiff credible but did not simply accept every amount claimed. It adjusted treatment frequency and allowances for possible surgery, used a buffer for future economic loss, and entered judgment with costs against the defendant.
Understanding the figures
The historical AUD 629,421.07 award included non-economic loss of 146,000, future domestic assistance of 187,323 and future economic loss of 102,000. Future economic loss was the 120,000 buffer reduced by 15% for contingencies, not contributory negligence. Costs were ordered separately.
What this case shows
The absence of an opponent did not remove the need to establish reasonable treatment and loss. The decision also demonstrates why a pre-existing psychological condition must be considered against actual pre- and post-injury functioning rather than assumed to reduce a physical-injury claim.
Why another case may differ
This was an ex parte assessment in 2019, not a general ruling on liability for salon entrances. Some age, calculation and unit descriptions in the reasons are inconsistent; the monetary account here follows the final schedule and orders.
Applying it to your claim
Different facts, evidence or procedures, an appeal, or a change in the law may affect how this decision applies. This is general information, not a report of a case handled by Park & Co Lawyers.
Considering a second opinion? →