What happened
The plaintiff said she moved backwards on a crowded dance floor, contacted the barrier base with her heel and fell. The club and its security contractor admitted negligent placement of the barrier but disputed causation and contributory negligence. She claimed continuing back disability, while the records also showed earlier back symptoms and a separate later work injury.
The issues
The court had to decide whether the barrier caused the fall despite the lack of a direct eyewitness to the heel contact, and whether moving backwards towards a known obstacle warranted a reduction. Quantum required separating the accident-related soft-tissue injury from prior disease and unrelated later conditions. Continuing earning loss and assistance needs also required their own causal foundation.
The court's decision
The judge accepted causation on the plaintiff’s perception of contact and the supporting contemporary evidence, while reducing damages by 10% for her own lack of care. The accident-related injury had largely resolved by her return to work, so non-economic loss and continuing assistance claims were not allowed. Past losses, expenses and a small future earning-capacity allowance were assessed before the reduction; costs were reserved.
Understanding the figures
The pre-reduction total was AUD 11,484.47: AUD 4,035.03 for past earnings and leave, AUD 2,449.44 for accepted out-of-pocket expenses, and AUD 5,000 for future earning capacity, including superannuation. The 10% reduction produced the AUD 10,336.02 judgment. That figure does not resolve reserved costs or establish the amount ultimately received.
What this case shows
The absence of an eyewitness to the precise contact did not defeat causation when the plaintiff’s perception and surrounding evidence were accepted. Establishing the occupier’s negligence was distinct from proving every claimed continuing loss. The factual accuracy of the medical history underlying expert opinions materially affected the damages assessment.
Why another case may differ
The result turns on the particular medical and work records surrounding the 2014 accident and 2018 judgment; it does not set a standard reduction for every claimant with a prior condition. Gratuitous assistance failed the required duration threshold, while paid assistance lacked a separate demonstrated accident-related need. The AUD 5,000 future-loss allowance was a discretionary assessment of limited risk, not a tariff for another claim.
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? →