Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Caruana v Darouti [2014] NSWCA 85 Hearing dates: 06/03/2014 Decision date: 28 March 2014 Before: Emmett JA at [1];
Leeming JA at [50];
McDougall J at [54]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 - occupier's liability - respondent slipped on appellant's driveway - whether appellant was negligent in resealing driveway - whether slip was reasonably foreseeable in circumstances where no prior accident - whether accident was caused by a positive act - whether reasonable care extended to erecting a handrail - whether trial judge failed to have regard to authorities - application of s 5B of the Civil Liability Act 2005 (NSW) to positive acts Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), s 5B, s 34
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 56(3)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 79Cases Cited: Drinkwater v Howarth [2006] NSWCA 222
Council of the City of Greater Taree v Wells [2010] NSWCA 147
Fitzsimmons v Coles Supermarket Australia Pty Ltd [2013] NSWCA 273
Francis v Lewis [2003] NSWCA 152Category: Principal judgment Parties: Rita Caruana as executor of the estate of the late Antoinette Caruana and on her own behalf (Appellant)
George Darouti (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
SE McCarthy / ND Compton (Appellant)
RS Sheldon SC / MA Campbell (Respondent)
Solicitors:
AR Conolly & Company Lawyers (Appellant)
Maxwell Berghouse & Ives Solicitors (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2013/119257 Decision under appeal
- Jurisdiction:
- 9101
- Date of Decision:
- 2013-04-04 00:00:00
- Before:
- Kearns DCJ
- File Number(s):
- 2011/130146
Judgment
EMMETT JA: This appeal arises out of injuries suffered by the respondent, Mr George Darouti, when he slipped and fell on the driveway of a property situated in Seaforth, New South Wales (the Property). The appellant, Ms Rita Caruana, was an occupier of the Property at the time of the fall and Mr Darouti sued Ms Caruana in the District Court. Mr Darouti also sued Coastline Concreting Pty Limited (Coastline), which had constructed the driveway.
Coastline did not appear and judgment was entered against it for damages to be assessed. After a trial in the District Court, the District Court found a verdict against Ms Caruana in favour of Mr Darouti and entered judgment against Ms Caruana and Coastline in the sum of $121,560. Ms Caruana now appeals from the orders made by the District Court.
The Circumstances of Mr Darouti's Fall
The Premises were owned by Ms Caruana's mother, Mrs Antoinette Caruana and, since February 1979, Ms Caruana had lived in the Premises with her mother. Mr Darouti was Mrs Caruana's nephew and…
Continue reading Caruana v Darouti
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Caruana v Darouti [2014] NSWCA 85
- Case
- [2014] NSWCA 85
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court was required to determine whether the appellant had breached their duty of care to the respondent. Specifically, the issues included whether the slip was reasonably foreseeable given the absence of prior accidents, whether the accident was caused by a positive act of the appellant, and whether reasonable care extended to the erection of a handrail. The Court also considered whether the trial judge had failed to properly regard relevant authorities in applying section 5B of the *Civil Liability Act 2005* (NSW) to the circumstances of the case, particularly in relation to positive acts.
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had correctly applied the principles of negligence under section 5B of the *Civil Liability Act 2005* (NSW). The resealing of the driveway constituted a positive act, and the risk of slipping was found to be reasonably foreseeable. The Court affirmed that the duty of care extended to taking reasonable precautions, which in this instance included the manner in which the driveway was resealed. The appeal was dismissed.
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.