Drotem Pty Ltd v Manning

Case [2000] NSWCA 320
CITATION: DROTEM PTY. LIMITED v. MANNING [2000] NSWCA 320
FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40784/99
HEARING DATE(S): 16/05/00
JUDGMENT DATE:
16 November 2000

PARTIES :
DROTEM PTY. LIMITED (Appellant)
JULIE RENEE MANNING (Respondent)
JUDGMENT OF: Powell JA at 1; Beazley JA at 57; Stein JA at 58
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : District Court
LOWER COURT
FILE NUMBER(S) : 		DC 327/98 (Newcastle)
LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER :		 Sidis DCJ
COUNSEL: J.E. Sexton SC (Appellant)
R.E. Montgomery (Respondent)
SOLICITORS: Ebsworth & Ebsworth (Appellant)
Stanger & Clarke (Newcastle) ( Respondent)
CATCHWORDS: NEGLIGENCE - Occupiers liability - Dangerous premises - Invitees - Unusual danger - Sufficient that occupier knew or ought to have known facts tending to create danger - Doctor's surgery leased from defendant/appellant - Access from car park on defendant/appellants' property via ramp on defendant/appellants' property - Ramp steep and, when wet, slippery - Plaintiff/respondent injured when descending ramp in rain - Liability of defendant/appellant D
DECISION: Appeal dismissed



      IN THE SUPREME COURT
      OF NEW SOUTH WALES
      COURT OF APPEAL

                                  CA 40784/99
                                  DC 327/98 (Newcastle)

                                  POWELL JA
                                  BEAZLEY JA
                                  STEIN JA

                                  16 November 2000

      DROTEM PTY. LIMITED ats MANNING
      JUDGMENT

1    POWELL JA: This is an appeal by an unsuccessful Defendant ("Drotem") from a Judgment delivered, and verdict found, by Sidis DCJ on 18 August 1999 - the formal Judgment appears not to be have been entered until 15 September 1999 when the quantum of damages required by the Judgment which her Honour had earlier delivered was agreed upon and when her Honour delivered a further Judgment - not reproduced in the appeal papers - dealing with the costs of the action.

2    In the action - the hearing of which took place at Newcastle - with which her Honour was concerned to deal, the Respondent ("Mrs. Manning") sought to recover from Drotem damages for injuries which she had sustained on 3 July 1997 when she slipped and fell while walking on what might be described as an access ramp leading from the car park at the rear of premises known as the Cooks Hill Medical Centre to the rear of a surgery occupied by a Dr. MacDonald and a pharmacy known as the Darby Street Day-Night Chemist situated on the ground floor of the Cooks Hill Medical Centre.

3    The land upon which the Cooks Hill Medical Centre is situated and which, at all relevant times, was owned by Drotem as trustee of the JADS Family Trust, has a frontage of 10.92 metres (approximately 36 feet) to Darby Street, Newcastle, a depth of 50.24 metres (approximately 165 feet) and a frontage, at the rear, to Railway Street, Newcastle.

4    Erected on the land at the Darby Street frontage is a two-storey - ground floor and one upper floor - commercial building known as 145-147 Darby Street, the ground floor of which is, as I have earlier indicated, occupied by the Darby Street Day-Night Chemist (No. 145) and Dr. MacDonald's surgery (No. 147). The upper floor is occupied by the professional offices of Messrs.…

Continue reading Drotem Pty Ltd v Manning

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Drotem Pty Ltd v Manning [2000] NSWCA 320
Case
[2000] NSWCA 320
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Drotem Pty Ltd (the appellant) leased premises to a doctor for use as a surgery. The appellant owned the car park adjacent to the surgery, and the doctor's patients, including the respondent, accessed the surgery via a ramp located on the appellant's property. The respondent was injured when descending this ramp in the rain, alleging negligence on the part of the appellant. The appellant appealed a decision finding it liable for the respondent's injuries.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the appellant, as the occupier of the property containing the ramp, owed a duty of care to the respondent, an invitee, and whether that duty had been breached. Specifically, the court had to determine if the ramp presented an "unusual danger" of which the appellant knew or ought to have known, and if the appellant had taken reasonable steps to prevent injury.

The court reasoned that the appellant, as the owner and occupier of the land, had a duty to ensure that the premises were reasonably safe for persons, such as the respondent, who were lawfully on the property. The evidence established that the ramp was steep and became slippery when wet. The court found that the appellant knew or ought to have known of these conditions, and that the combination of steepness and slipperiness constituted an unusual danger. The appellant had failed to take reasonable precautions to mitigate this danger, such as by providing non-slip surfaces or adequate warning signage.

The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

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.