Petrovic v Waterhouse & Anor [2007] NSWSC 508

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Petrovic v Waterhouse & Anor [2007] NSWSC 508

HEARING DATE(S) : 18/04/05 - 22/04/05, 26/04/05 - 29/04/05; 29/08/05 - 31/08/05, 02/09/05, 07/09/05, 12/09/05 -16/09/05, 20/09/05, 23/09/05, 31/10/05, 01/11/05 - 03/11/05, 05/11/05, 09/11/05, 14/12/05

JUDGMENT DATE : 19 June 2007

JURISDICTION : Common Law Division

JUDGMENT OF : Hidden J at 1

DECISION : Judgment for the plaintiff in each case.

CATCHWORDS : DAMAGES: - personal injury claim - incident involving runaway horse and plaintiffs in a car - some physical injury but claims primarily for psychological injury

LEGISLATION CITED : Civil Liability Act 2002

Natalie Petrovic (plaintiff - 20134/2004) PARTIES : Ruzica Petrovic (plaintif - 20132/2004) Gai Waterhouse Racing Pty Ltd (1st defendant) Australian Jockey Club (2nd defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 20134/2004; 20132/2004

COUNSEL : P Semmler QC with R Royle (plaintiffs) J Sexton SC with R Cheney (1st & 2nd defendants)

Vizzone Ruggero & Associates (plaintiffs) SOLICITORS : Henry Davis York (1st defendant) Riley, Gray-Spencer (2nd defendant)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

HIDDEN J

Tuesday 19 June 2007

20134/04 Natalie Petrovic v Gai Waterhouse Racing & Anor 20132/04 Ruzica Petrovic v Gai Waterhouse Racing & Anor

JUDGMENT 1 HIS HONOUR: These two proceedings for damages for personal injury were heard together, and arise from an accident which was as bizarre as it was distressing. In the early afternoon of 22 January 2001, Ms Natalie Petrovic was driving a car in Alison Rd, Randwick. In the front passenger seat was her mother, Mrs Ruzica Petrovic. They were travelling towards Bondi Junction, where they both worked. 2 As the car reached a point roughly opposite the Randwick Racecourse, several horses emerged from the racecourse and galloped across the road. One of them galloped towards the car and tried unsuccessfully to jump over it. It landed on the roof of the car and its hooves penetrated the windscreen. The horse, "Honour & Strength", weighed about 500kg. It was badly hurt and had to be put down. 3 Both Ms Petrovic and her mother allege that, as a result of the incident, they suffered physical and psychological injury. The horses had been under the control of strappers employed by the first defendant, Gai Waterhouse Racing Pty Ltd. It seems that the animals were startled by the noise of a motor vehicle in the racecourse and the strappers were unable to restrain them. The second defendant, the Australian Jockey Club, was the occupier of the racecourse. The horses were able to kick down a gate giving them access to Alison Road. 4 Both defendants admit their duty of care to the plaintiffs and their breach of it. The only issue is damage. The defendants contend that, if the plaintiffs suffered any injury at all, physical or psychological, both of them have greatly exaggerated it. I received a great deal of expert evidence, all of which is important. However, the plaintiffs' credibility is central to the resolution of the case. 5 I shall deal as succinctly as I can with the large volume of evidence, oral and written, produced in the course of a lengthy trial. I have the benefit of comprehensive written submissions, developed orally, from senior and junior counsel for the plaintiffs, who were jointly represented, and for the defendants, who also were jointly represented. This judgment will address the issues raised in those submissions. Although the two proceedings are closely related, it is appropriate to deal with the case of each plaintiff separately, examining the background of each of them, her account of the accident and the evidence of its effect upon her. NATALIE PETROVIC