South Ballarat woman Michelle Egglestone, 35,sustained serious internal injuries when the picket penetrated her groin, requiring surgery.

Ms Egglestone is seeking damages and loss of earning capacity from Leslie Furness, of Smythes Creek, following the incident on November 1, 2008, according to documents filed in Victoria's Supreme Court.

She also sustained pelvis and lower abdominal injuries, claims she has post-operative scarring, depression and anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder and nightmares resulting from what happened.

Mr Furness — her former fiance — was the owner and occupier of the house, therefore Ms Egglestone believes he was negligent in not providing adequate balustrading on the veranda and uncapped star pickets in the garden area below, where Ms Egglestone fell.

This did not comply with building regulations and failed to minimise the risk of injury to anyone coming into contact with any pickets, the writ claims.

Mr Furness should have provided adequate warning about it and his failure to do so exposed Ms Egglestone to "risk of danger of injury which could have been avoided with reasonable care on the part of the defendant ... which the defendant knew or ought to have known," it states.

The writ claims Mr Furness had also failed to exercise due skill and care in the maintenance of the premises.

The personal injury matter is expected to go to trial at a later date.

____________________________________


I could write an essay on why I have a problem with this type of litigation.

I'll just surmise some dot points instead.

  • Contributed to her injury
  • Drunk
  • Urinating over a balcony
  • One would assume the plaintiff would be familiar with the balcony as it was part of her then fiancee's
  • Plaintiff did not take reasonable care (due to being drunk) to keep a careful and proper lookout for her own safety and well being
  • How is it the defendant's fault she fell off the balcony whilst drunk taking a piss? Oh the balcony..... that's right
  • A reasonable person would not think that another person would take a piss being drunk over the balcony which could then cause them to fall and impale themselves on the uncapped picket fence below.
Are you serious? The solicitors who took this case on.... really? On what grounds do you think she will be successful. There must be some serious issues with that balcony and even then, contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff would be at minimum 50%. Perhaps she lucked out with the insurance company not paying her any medicals, loe and damages? What, for her own stupidity? Cases like these give lawyers and litigation a bad name.