Ms MV was a long-time member of a club located in Rooty Hill. She had been a recipient of a disability pension for many years because of a workplace injury to her spine. As such she was already quite medically fragile. The only pastime that she and her husband had was participating in bingo at the club.
On this particular day, it had been raining. Ms ML visited the club with her mother while her husband parked the car. As they entered into the club, there were no mats to dry their feet. As they approached the club membership swipe machine, Ms ML stepped into a wet area which caused her to slip and fall heavily.
She was attended to with first aid and later attend upon her general practitioner.
As a consequence of the fall, her already diminished daily activities were exacerbated.
As ML was on a fixed social security income, she was not able to attend to the range of treatment that she would have liked to. She also did not have any other social circles other than her husband and her own mother who are also recipients of disability pensions to assist her in relation to her domestic activities.
All of these factors limited the value of the claim. Despite these limitations, Gerard Malouf & Partners provided her with a commitment to see her case to the end to ensure that Justice was served.
Upon giving notice of the claim, the club and then later the Insurer for the club, denied liability on the basis that on the day which was claimed the incident had occurred that there was no rain. The club stated words to the effect:-
“That if there had been rain they would have engaged their wet weather protocol. This indicated that the wet weather protocol that they had was not put into action.”
Investigations through the Bureau of Meteorology showed that there was rain on that day equivalent to 1 mm. In response, the club stated words to the effect:-
“That is not the area club is located.”
The club asserted they were closer to another meteorological point. Further investigations of the secondary meteorological point also indicated rain equivalent to 1 mm. This amounted to sufficient evidence to indicate that on the day that the incident had occurred, the weather was wet. There had been an admission by the club that their wet weather protocol was not acted upon.
It was through the diligence of Gerard Malouf & partners that we were able to gather sufficient evidence that on the date of the incident it was more likely than not that it had been raining. There had been no wet weather protocols activated. It would therefore be more likely than not that the floor was wet.
Despite all of this evidence, Gerard Malouf & Partners were put to task to engage an expert to confirm what other people would consider to be obvious. To honour our commitment to our client, such expenses were made to maximise the compensation to our client.
Ultimately, at an Informal Settlement Conference, where the insurer suggested that they have video evidence of Ms ML being capable of sitting for long periods, standing for long periods, incapable of bending and squatting as she continued to be a regular member of the club to attend upon their bingo, Gerard Malouf & Partners were still able to obtain a settlement in her favour in excess of $40,000.00.
This is an example of the commitment that Gerard Malouf & Partners provide to their clients to prepare the very best case in an effort to maximise compensation.