Finniss v State of New South Wales

The case of *Finniss v State of New South Wales* concerned an appeal to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales following a primary judge's decision. The appellant, a school cleaner, had suffered injury when striking her head on a storeroom doorframe while performing her duties. The dispute centred on whether the occupier, the State of New South Wales, was negligent in its duty of care towards the cleaner, and whether the cleaner herself had been contributorily negligent.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the occupier had breached its duty of care by failing to take reasonable precautions to prevent the cleaner from sustaining injury, specifically in relation to the storeroom's configuration and contents. This involved considering whether relocating the entire contents of the storeroom was a reasonable precaution, and whether the burden of taking such precautions, including the burden of taking similar precautions across other areas, was overly onerous. The court also had to determine if the risk of harm was patently obvious to the cleaner, thereby establishing contributory negligence on her part, and if so, how liability should be apportioned between the occupier and the cleaner's employer. Finally, the assessment of damages for non-economic loss was also a point of consideration.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the primary judge's findings. The court reasoned that the risk of striking one's head on the doorframe was patently obvious to a person in the cleaner's position, particularly given her familiarity with the storeroom. Consequently, the court found that the cleaner had been contributorily negligent. The court also concluded that the occupier had not breached its duty of care, finding that the burden of taking the proposed precautions, such as relocating the storeroom's contents, would have been overly onerous and disproportionate to the foreseeable risk. The court further noted that the respondent had been wholly successful on its notice of contention and had not led the primary judge into error.

As a result of the appeal being dismissed, the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.