Bader v Jelic

In *Bader v Jelic*, the plaintiff, Mr Bader, appealed to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales against a judgment entered against him in favour of the defendants, Mr and Mrs Jelic. Mr Bader had sustained injuries when he fell into a plate glass window at the defendants' home unit while attending to undertake work. He contended that the defendants had been negligent in failing to take reasonable precautions to prevent such an accident.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the primary judge had erred in finding the defendants negligent. Specifically, the court considered whether a reasonable person in the position of the defendants would have taken the precaution of lowering a blind over the window, thereby preventing it from being mistaken for a doorway. The court also had to determine if the primary judge had correctly applied the provisions of the *Civil Liability Act*.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment and orders made at first instance. The court reasoned that the mere fact that premises could be made safer does not automatically render them dangerous or defective. Applying the principles from *Jones v Bartlett*, the court found that the defendants had not breached their duty of care. The accident-free history of the premises was a significant factor in this determination. Consequently, judgment was entered for the appellants (the defendants), and the respondent (the plaintiff) was ordered to pay the costs of both the proceedings at first instance and the appeal.