Hanzic v. Cabramatta Community Centre Inc & Ors [1999] NSWSC 1205

New South Wales Supreme Court CITATION : Hanzic v. Cabramatta Community Centre Inc & Ors [1999] NSWSC 1205 CURRENT JURISDICTION : civil FILE NUMBER(S) : 11310/89 HEARING DATE(S) : November 16, 17, 18, 19, 22 1999 JUDGMENT DATE : 15 December 1999

PARTIES : Phyllis Hansic Cabramatta Community Centre Inc & Ors JUDGMENT OF : Wood CJatCL

P: P. Capelin QC/Mr. Carney COUNSEL : 1st Def: D.R. Russell QC 2nd Def: Woods with T. Barrett P: Lewarne & Goldsmith SOLICITORS : 1 Def; Dunhill Madden Butler 2 Def: Brown Solicitors CATCHWORDS : personal injury; occupier's liability DECISION : Verdict for Plaintiff against first and second defendants.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

No. 11310 of 1989 WOOD CJ at CL

WEDNESDAY 15 DECEMBER 1999

HANZIC v CABRAMATTA COMMUNITY CENTRE INC & ANOR

JUDGMENT 1 WOOD CJ at CL:

BACKGROUND 2 On 9 January 1986 the plaintiff was working as a child care supervisor at a vacation care programme conducted by the first defendant, the Cabramatta Community Centre, within the premises constituting the Villawood Public School. Those premises were owned by the second defendant, the State of New South Wales, and they were used in term time as a primary school. 3 During the vacation period, the second defendant permitted the first defendant to use the craft room, as it was described, as well as the toilet facilities and such portions of the schoolyard as were needed, for its vacational care programme. 4 The 9th January 1986 was a wet day. In order to keep the children occupied arrangements were made to show them some videos. For that purpose, chairs needed to be moved from an elevated stage area to the body of the room. In the course of setting up the room, the plaintiff and some other workers made their way up to and down from the stage, which stood at a height of 860mm above the floor of the hall, using a set of centrally located stairs. These stairs were somewhat primitive, comprising four open steps secured at the top to the stage, and at the bottom to the floor of the hall. They did not have any handrail. To their condition at the time of the accident I will return, as it is in relation to that issue that the plaintiff's claim turns. 5 It was the plaintiff's evidence that as she was going up the stairs, she noticed a box containing computer paper at the front of the stage to her right. Fearing that someone may trip over it, she reached over, picked it up, turned, and went to descend the stairs. As she did so she slipped. She fell to the ground, twisting her left ankle and striking her back. Her ankle quickly swelled up and she was taken to hospital. X-rays were taken, her ankle was strapped and she was advised to see her general practitioner. Later she was referred to an orthopaedic specialist. She was placed in a short leg plaster, and treated with physiotherapy and analgesics. 6 For some years afterwards she walked with the aid of a single crutch, two crutches, or a walking stick. As time passed she began to experience pain in the hip and lower back. It would seem that this aggravation became obvious in about mid 1988. Eventually she was referred to medical staff at the Royal North Shore Pain Management Centre for further treatment. From about 1990 she found that she was experiencing falls when the right leg collapsed from under her. These falls she attributed to pain in the back and hip occasioned by the change in posture caused by the use of walking aids, and by the steps that she had taken to reduce stress on her injured left ankle. Eventually, on 4 February 1993, while being treated at the North Shore Pain Management Centre, she suffered one such fall down some stairs, occurring, according to her when her right leg gave way. In this fall she suffered a fracture of the malleolus in the left ankle. 7 Upon the plaintiff's case, she developed severe disabilities as a result of these events. They led to multiple attempts at treatment by a number of medical practitioners as well as numerous hospital admissions, culminating most recently in the implantation of a morphine pump, designed to reduce her pain, and thereby to take her off the considerable volume of medication that was being prescribed, and to increase her mobility. The outcome of that procedure so far has been favourable, in that the plaintiff has made considerable progress in reducing the vast amount of weight that she put on during the period of inactivity, in reducing her dependence on medication, and in improving her outlook on life. 8 It is her case that the somewhat dramatic and extensive sequelae of what, on face value, might have been regarded as a simple ankle strain, were all the direct consequence of the original accident, and are organically based. It is the case of the defendants, however, that the consequences outlined have been exaggerated. The plaintiff, they submit, has been less than genuine in her complaints. Alternatively, it is submitted, if her disabilities are genuine, then they are attributable to causes other than the original accident. It is the defendant's case additionally, and independently of the medical issues, that the stairs were safe, that there was no breach of any duty of care on their part, and that if there was any such breach of duty of care, then the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence in not maintaining "a proper lookout". 9 Both defendants conceded the existence of a general duty to exercise reasonable care for the safety of the plaintiff, on the part of the first defendant as an occupier and employer, and on the part of the second defendant as owner and joint occupier of the premises. The content of that duty of care in relation to the steps, the occurrence of any breach, and the presence of a causal connection between any breach and the fall are, however, very much in dispute.