Borland v Makauskas

In Borland v Makauskas, the respondent claimed damages from the appellants, who were the owners of a property adjacent to a canal, following an injury he sustained while diving into the canal. The respondent alleged that the appellants were negligent in not installing a warning sign and in leaving a fence in place which he argued served as an invitation to jump or dive into the canal. The jury found in favour of the respondent, holding the appellants liable for the injuries sustained. The appellants appealed the decision, arguing that the jury's findings were not supported by the evidence and that the court should substitute its verdict for that of the jury.

The court was required to determine whether the jury's verdicts were supported by the evidence and whether the court should intervene and substitute its own verdict. The court had to assess whether the appellants breached their duty of care by not installing a warning sign and by leaving the fence in place. The court also needed to consider whether the respondent's injuries were caused by the appellants' negligence and whether the respondent's own actions contributed to the injuries sustained.

The court found that the jury's verdicts were not supported by the evidence and that the appellants were not negligent in the circumstances. The court held that the respondent's injuries were not caused by the appellants' negligence and that the respondent's own actions contributed to the injuries sustained. The court held that it was appropriate to exercise its power to set aside the jury's verdicts and to substitute its own verdict. The court found that the appellants were not liable for the respondent's injuries and that the respondent's action should be dismissed.

The court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment, and substituted its own verdict. The court ordered that the respondent's action be dismissed and that the appellants recover their costs of the trial proceeding and the appeal. The court held that the appellants were not liable for the respondent's injuries and that the respondent's own actions contributed to the injuries sustained. The court held that the jury's verdicts were not supported by the evidence and that the appellants were not negligent in the circumstances.