Caruana v Darouti

Case [2014] NSWCA 85


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 79
Cases 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 152
Category: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

  1. 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.

  1. 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

  1. 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

Details
AGLC
Caruana v Darouti [2014] NSWCA 85
Case
[2014] NSWCA 85
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Caruana v Darouti*, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered an appeal from a judgment in favour of the respondent, who had slipped and fallen on the appellant's driveway. The dispute concerned whether the appellant was negligent in resealing the driveway, leading to the respondent's injury.

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.