A V Jennings Ltd v Thomas

Case [2004] NSWCA 309
CITATION: AV Jennings Limited v Thomas [2004] NSWCA 309
HEARING DATE(S): 01/09/2004
JUDGMENT DATE:
1 November 2004
JUDGMENT OF: Beazley JA at 1; Bryson JA at 2; Palmer J at 64
DECISION: Appeal dismissed with costs.
CATCHWORDS: NEGLIGENCE - OCCUPIERS LIABILITY - workplace - entrant (carpet cleaning contractor) attended to clean carpets in building recently transported bodily to new site - builder's foreman directed entrant to attend for work at 7.30 am before building was opened and gave him keys to front door - front door accessible by stairs - when he arrived there were mounds of wet mud at the foot of stairs - while carrying equipment he stepped over mound of mud and his foot slipped on mud on lowest stair. District Court awarded damages. Consideration of: duty of care of occupier in control of a workplace: assumption of exercise of reasonable care by entrant: contributory negligence of entrant: development of personal responsibility in negligence law: significance of entrant's knowledge of a danger [40] "It remains the law that allowance must be made for inadvertence and that an occupier owes a duty of care even to careless entrants." Held: decision on liability should not be disturbed. - DAMAGES - contentions that there were errors in assessment of damages, which related to factual questions, were rejected.
CASES CITED: AC Billings & Sons Ltd v Riden [1958] AC 240
Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v. Zaluzna (1987) 162 CLR 479
Bus v. Sydney County Council (1989) 167 CLR 78
David Jones Ltd v. Bates [2001] NSWCA 233
Gould & Birbeck & Bacon v Mount Oxide Mines Ltd (in liq) (1916) 22 CLR 490
Kolodziejczyk v Grandview Pty Limited (2002) Aust Torts Reports 81-673
March v E & M H Stramare Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506
McFerran v. Randle (1903) 3 SR (NSW) 445 Mountney v. Smith (1903) 3 SR (NSW) 668
O'Connor v Commissioner for Government Transport (1954) 100 CLR 225
Richmond Valley Council v. Standing [2002] NSWCA 359
Romeo v. Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory (1998) 192 CLR 431
Sydney County Council v. Dell'Oro (1974) 132 CLR 97
Turnbull v Alm & Anor [2004] NSWCA 173
Van der Sluice v Display Craft Pty Limited [2002] NSWCA 204
Waverley Municipal Council v. Swain [2003] NSCA 61

PARTIES :

 AV Jennings Limited - Appellant
Barry John Thomas - Respondent
FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40785 of 2003
COUNSEL: J. Maconachie SC and M. Windsor - Appellant
D. Kennedy SC and G. Smith - Respondent
SOLICITORS: Hunt & Hunt - Appellant
Bale Boshev - Respondent
LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 1277 of 2001
LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : 		Judge Sidis


                          40785/2003

                          BEAZLEY JA
                          BRYSON JA
                          PALMER J

                          MONDAY 1 NOVEMBER 2004
A V JENNINGS LIMITED v BARRY JOHN THOMAS
Judgment

1 BEAZLEY JA: I agree with Bryson JA.

2 BRYSON JA: The respondent Mr Thomas obtained a verdict and judgment against the appellant A V Jennings Limited (Jennings) for $506,112.49 on 22 August 2003 in action 1227 of…

Continue reading A V Jennings Ltd v Thomas

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
A V Jennings Ltd v Thomas [2004] NSWCA 309
Case
[2004] NSWCA 309
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

A V Jennings Ltd appealed to the New South Wales Court of Appeal against a decision of the District Court which had awarded damages to Mr Thomas. Mr Thomas, a carpet cleaning contractor, had been injured while attending a building site to perform work. The builder's foreman had directed Mr Thomas to attend the site early in the morning before it was officially opened and provided him with keys to the front door, which was accessible by stairs. Upon arrival, Mr Thomas encountered mounds of wet mud at the foot of the stairs. While carrying equipment, he stepped over the mud and his foot slipped on mud on the lowest stair, causing him to fall and sustain injuries.

The Court of Appeal was required to consider whether the builder, as occupier in control of the workplace, owed a duty of care to Mr Thomas, and if so, whether that duty had been breached. The court also had to determine whether Mr Thomas had been contributorily negligent, and the significance of his knowledge of the presence of mud. Furthermore, the appeal raised questions regarding the assessment of damages awarded by the District Court.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the principles of occupiers' liability, acknowledging that an occupier owes a duty of care even to entrants who may be careless. However, the court also recognised the development of personal responsibility in negligence law and the significance of an entrant's knowledge of a danger. The court found that the District Court had correctly applied these principles and that its decision on liability should not be disturbed. The contentions that there were errors in the assessment of damages were also rejected, as these were found to be factual questions.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.