Burton v Brooks

Case [2011] NSWCA 175


Court of Appeal

New South Wales

Case Title: Burton v Brooks
Medium Neutral Citation: [2011] NSWCA 175
Hearing Date(s): 21 June 2011
Decision Date: 01 July 2011
Jurisdiction:
Before:

Hodgson JA at [1]
Macfarlan JA at [2]
Tobias AJA at [49]

Decision:

Appeal dismissed with costs.
[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

Catchwords:

TORTS - negligence - plaintiff falls into empty swimming pool whilst assisting defendant in tree-lopping activity - family relationship - nature and content of duty of care owed by defendant as occupier of property and organiser of activity - open to defendant not to engage in activity - whether plaintiff required to prove precautions that could have been taken where it was open to defendant not to engage in activity

DAMAGES - negligence - personal injury - future economic loss - earning capacity - award of buffer to compensate plaintiff for risk that his present employment may cease in the future

Legislation Cited:

Civil Liability Act 2002
Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999

Cases Cited:

Agar v Hyde [2000] HCA 41; (2000) 201 CLR 552
Agresta v Agresta [2010] NSWCA 330
Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna [1987] HCA 7; (1987) 162 CLR 479
Laresu Pty Ltd v Clark [2010] NSWCA 180; [2010] Aust Torts Reports [82-068]
Leichhardt Municipal Council v Montgomery [2005] NSWCA 432
Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd v Fox [2009] HCA 35; (2009) 240 CLR 1
Penrith City Council v Parks [2004] NSWCA 201
Stretenovic v Reed [2009] NSWCA 280
Thompson v Woolworths (Qld) Pty Ltd [2005] HCA 19; (2005) 221 CLR 234

Texts Cited:
Category: Principal judgment
Parties:

Trevor Burton (Appellant)
Troy Brooks (Respondent)

Representation
- Counsel:

Counsel:
G M Watson SC/R Gambi (Appellant)
M J Cranitch SC/A D Campbell (Respondent)

- Solicitors:

Solicitors:
Moray & Agnew (Appellant)
Parramatta City Legal (Respondent)

File number(s): CA 2010/48904
Decision Under Appeal
- Court / Tribunal:
- Before: Garling DCJ
- Date of Decision: 12 February 2010
- Citation: Troy Brooks v Trevor Burton
- Court File Number(s) DC 264/2009
Publication Restriction:

Judgment

  1. HODGSON JA : I agree with Macfarlan JA.

  1. MACFARLAN JA : On 17 February 2008 Mr Troy Brooks, the respondent, fell backwards into an empty swimming pool at a house at Arncliffe owned and occupied by Mr Burton. Mr Burton is married to the sister of Mr Brooks' de facto partner, Ms Rita Paduano.

  1. At the time of the accident Mr Brooks was assisting Mr Burton to lop trees in the vicinity of the pool. Mr Brooks suffered serious injuries as a result of the accident.

  1. By the present proceedings Mr Brooks claimed damages from Mr Burton…

Continue reading Burton v Brooks

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Burton v Brooks [2011] NSWCA 175
Case
[2011] NSWCA 175
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Burton v Brooks*, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered a negligence claim brought by the plaintiff against the defendant. The plaintiff sustained injuries when he fell into an empty swimming pool while assisting the defendant with a tree-lopping activity on the defendant's property. The relationship between the parties was familial.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were the nature and content of the duty of care owed by the defendant, both as an occupier of the property and as the organiser of the tree-lopping activity. Specifically, the Court had to determine whether the defendant could avoid liability by demonstrating that it was open to him not to engage in the activity at all, and if so, whether the plaintiff was required to prove specific precautions that could have been taken in the circumstances.

The Court reasoned that the defendant, as the occupier and organiser of the activity, owed a duty of care to the plaintiff. This duty encompassed taking reasonable steps to ensure the safety of those participating in the activity on his property. The Court found that the defendant had a clear choice not to undertake the tree-lopping activity, and by choosing to proceed, he assumed responsibility for managing the associated risks. The Court held that the plaintiff was not required to prove specific precautions that could have been taken if the defendant could have simply avoided the activity altogether. The Court also addressed the assessment of damages, including an award for future economic loss, which included a buffer to compensate the plaintiff for the risk of his present employment ceasing in the future.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed with costs.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

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.