Hodge v Gladesville Bridge Marina Pty Limited [2006] NSWSC 911

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Hodge v Gladesville Bridge Marina Pty Limited [2006] NSWSC 911

HEARING DATE(S) : 30-31/05/05, 1-2/06/05, 1-2/05/06, 4/05/06

JUDGMENT DATE : 8 September 2006

JUDGMENT OF : James J at 1

DECISION : Verdict for the plaintiff - damages partly assessed

PARTIES : Hodge v Gladesville Bridge Marina Pty Limited

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 20555/01

COUNSEL : D Elliott - Plaintiff D Priestley - Defendant

SOLICITORS : G.H. Healey & Co Rankin Nathan Lawyers

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

JAMES J

8 September 2006

20555/01 HODGE v GLADESVILLE BRIDGE MARINA PTY LIMITED

JUDGMENT 1 HIS HONOUR: This is an action for damages for personal injuries which the plaintiff Mr Hodge claims that he suffered in an accident occurring on 25 February 2000, while he was employed by the defendant Gladesville Bridge Marina Pty Limited. The plaintiff alleges that, while he was performing the task of washing with acid the hull of a boat which was on a slip at the defendant's Marina at Drummoyne, drops of the acid entered his eyes, injuring them. The plaintiff also alleges that he has suffered psychological injury as a result of the accident. 2 A number of particulars of alleged negligence on the part of the defendant are set out in the plaintiff's statement of claim. The particulars of negligence which were most strongly pressed at the hearing were that the defendant had failed to take reasonable care for the safety of the plaintiff, in not training the plaintiff in the task of acid washing a boat, in not providing protective goggles for the plaintiff to wear when acid washing a boat and in not instituting and maintaining a system of work in which the plaintiff was required to wear protective goggles when acid washing a boat. In its defence the defendant denied that it had been negligent and alleged that the plaintiff had been guilty of contributory negligence. 3 As the accident occurred as long ago as 25 February 2000, the assessment of any damages is governed by the Workers Compensation Act 1987, as then in force. 4 At the trial oral evidence was given in the plaintiff's case by lay witnesses, being the plaintiff himself, his partner Ms Sarah Walker and Mr Bruce Schultz, who was another employee of the defendant, and by expert witnesses, being Mr Spencer, an occupational health and safety expert; Dr Delaney, an ophthalmic surgeon; Professor Kennett, a psychologist; and Dr Barold, a medical practitioner with a special interest in occupational health. Reports by the expert witnesses I have listed and by some other expert witnesses who did not give oral evidence at the hearing were also admitted into evidence. 5 At the trial evidence was given in the defendant's case by lay witnesses, being Mr John Webb, an employee of the defendant; Mr Phillip Southcombe, the managing director of the defendant; and Mr Danny Southcombe, Mr Phillip Southcombe's son. Reports by a number of expert witnesses were admitted into evidence in the defendant's case. None of these experts were required to attend for cross-examination on their reports and they did not give oral evidence.