GHABOUR v ROYAL PRINCE ALFRED HOSPITAL [1996] NSWCA 207

GHABOUR v ROYAL PRINCE ALFRED HOSPITAL

SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES — COURT OF APPEAL

CLARKE JA, MEAGHER JA and HANDLEY JA 17 September 1996

[1996] NSWCA 207 FACTS

Appellant/plaintiff appealed jury finding as perverse.

HELD

(1) Since there was evidence going in favour of the plaintiff and the defendants, the jury was entitled to find against the plaintiff on each or all of the issues and obviously did so.

(2) In this case credit mattered very considerably and the jury's verdict reflects a disposition to believe the defendants on this matter.

Clarke JA. I will ask Meagher JA to give the first judgment.

Meagher JA. The plaintiff, Mr Ghabour, came to this country in 1971 and started working at the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital in 1974 as a cleaner.

He sued the hospital on two causes of action and a doctor at the hospital, Dr Harvey, on a third cause of action. In each case the jury found for the defendant. He appeals to this Court on the grounds that in each case the jury's verdict was perverse.

The first cause of action against the hospital arises out of these circumstances. In July 1981, while performing his duties, he fell and did some damage to his back. He returned to work later in 1981 and resumed his duties. He sued the hospital for negligence. He says the hospital was negligent inpermitting him to use a polishing machine on a surface which was partly wet from waxing. It was this negligence which caused the machine he was using to get out of control, which in turn caused him to fall.

The hospital was also alleged to be negligent in not ensuring that he wore the rubber boots with which it supplied him. As I have said, the jury found for the defendant.

The appellant has necessarily undertaken the burden of showing that the jury's verdict was one at which rational people could not possibly arrive. In fact, if one examines the issues and facts which were in dispute in this case, they are considerable.