Rusu v Woolworths Ltd [2002] NSWCA 72

New South Wales Court of Appeal

CITATION : Rusu v Woolworths Ltd [2002] NSWCA 72 FILE NUMBER(S) : CA 40217/01 HEARING DATE(S) : 11 March 2002 JUDGMENT DATE : 11 March 2002

PARTIES : Cornell Rusu - Appellant Woolworths Ltd - Defendant JUDGMENT OF : Stein JA at 19; Giles JA at 1

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : District Court LOWER COURT DC 7472/99 FILE NUMBER(S) : LOWER COURT McGuire DCJ JUDICIAL OFFICER :

COUNSEL : S Norton SC & A Healey - Appellant G M Watson - Respondent SOLICITORS : Brydens Law Office, Liverpool - Appellant Ebsworth & Ebsworth - Respondent CATCHWORDS : NEGLIGENCE - damages - global award of economic loss as part of general damages - whether inadequate - no question of principle. CASES CITED: Dessent v Commonwealth of Australia (1977) 13 ALR 437; Government Insurance Office of NSW v Bailey (1992) 27 NSWR 304. DECISION : Appeal dismissed with costs.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL CA 40217/01 Dc 7472/92

STEIN JA GILES JA

Monday 11 March 2002 RUSU v WOOLWORTHS LTD Judgment 1 GILES JA: The appellant was shopping in one of the respondent's stores on 22 November 1996. He was squatting on his haunches looking at merchandise. A store employee pushed a loaded metal trolley from the storeroom area into the area where the appellant was squatting. He pushed it through the doorway without care for anyone on the other side of the doors, and the trolley struck the appellant on the left side of his head. The respondent was found to have been negligent and the appellant was awarded damages of $58,476. He appealed in relation to the assessment of his damages. 2 The grounds of appeal in the notice of appeal were as follows: "1. His Honour erred in making a global assessment of the appellant's loss and including past and future economic loss in the award for past and future general damages. 2. On the finding of injury made by his Honour, the appellant was entitled to damages for loss of economic capacity past and future, general damages and expenses past and future. 3. On finding [sic] of injury made by his Honour the allowance for future economic loss should have been substantial and his Honour erred in failing to assess the appellant's percentage loss of earning capacity. 4. His Honour's finding that the appellant's condition was not permanent was against the evidence and the weight of the evidence.