District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Hodgson v Sydney Water Corporation [2016] NSWDC 361 Hearing dates: 21 September 2016-23 September 2016,21 November 2016-22 November 2016, 25 November 2016 Date of orders: 15 December 2016 Decision date: 15 December 2016 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: Dicker SC DCJ Decision: (1) Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant.
(2) Liberty to the parties to bring in Short Minutes of Order reflecting the mathematically agreed judgment sum.
(3) The defendant is to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings as agreed or assessed.
(4) Liberty to apply in relation to costs.
(5) Exhibits to be retained for 28 days.Catchwords: Tort – negligence – fall on concrete apron of drain crossing public beach – whether risk obvious – practicability of interim measures – whether risk warning given – Sections 5B, 5D, 5F, 5I, 5M, 42 and 43A of the Civil Liability Act. Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)
Sydney Water Act 1994 (NSW)
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW)Cases Cited: Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak (2009) 239 CLR 420
Bankstown City Council v Zraika [2016] NSWCA 51
Berkeley Challenge Pty Ltd v Howarth [2013] NSWCA 370
Brodie v Singleton Shire Council (2001) 206 CLR 512
Curtis v Harden Shire Council [2014] NSWCA 314; 88 NSWLR 10
Dybka v McKenzie [2001] NSWCA 171
Jackson v McDonald’s Australia Ltd [2014] NSWCA 162
Mansfield v Great Lakes Council [2016] NSWCA 204
Medlin v State Government Insurance Office (1995) 182 CLR 1
Nepean Blue Mountains Local Health District v Starkey [2016] NSWCA 114
Penrith City Council v Parkes [2004] NSWCA 201
Roads and Maritime Services v Grant [2015] NSWCA 138
Rockdale City Council v Simmons [2015] NSWCA 102
Sharp v Parramatta City Council [2015] NSWCA 260
Stojan (No 9) Pty Ltd v Kenway [2009] NSWCA 364
Strong v Woolworths Ltd (2012) 246 CLR 182
Takla v Nasr [2013] NSWCA 435
Wallace v Kam (2013) 250 CLR 375
Wilkinson v Law Courts Ltd [2001] NSWCA 196Category: Principal judgment Parties: Phoebe Hodgson (Plaintiff)
Sydney Water Corporation (Defendant)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
R Foord (Plaintiff)
S Glascott (Defendant)
Deniston Day (Plaintiff)
Makinson d’Apice (Defendant)
File Number(s): 2015/198391
Judgment
-
These proceedings are brought by the plaintiff in negligence for damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff in a fall which occurred on 30 November 2013 when the plaintiff was crossing a drain owned by the defendant corporation, then situated on the beach at Rose Bay in Sydney in New South Wales.
-
The plaintiff claims that the drain, which was constructed in the form of a concrete apron in front of a pipe which discharged water onto the concrete apron and then into the sea, was slippery and dangerous at the time and this caused the plaintiff’s fall and the injuries suffered by her.
The Statement of Claim
-
The Statement of Claim upon which the plaintiff relies was filed on 7 July 2015. The plaintiff pleads in the Statement of Claim that at all material times…
Continue reading Hodgson v Sydney Water Corporation
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Hodgson v Sydney Water Corporation [2016] NSWDC 361
- Case
- [2016] NSWDC 361
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the risk posed by the concrete apron was obvious, the practicability of implementing interim measures, and if the plaintiff was adequately warned of the risk. This involved applying sections 5B, 5D, 5F, 5I, 5M, 42, and 43A of the Civil Liability Act. The court considered whether the risk was obvious to a reasonable person, whether there were feasible interim measures that could be taken, and whether the defendant provided sufficient warning of the danger.
The court found that the risk was not obvious, interim measures were practicable, and no adequate warning was given. The court held that the defendant had breached its duty of care by failing to take reasonable steps to warn of the danger. As a result, the court found in favour of the plaintiff and awarded damages. The court ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings as agreed or assessed, and that the exhibits be retained for 28 days.
The final orders included a judgment in favour of the plaintiff, liberty to the parties to bring in Short Minutes of Order reflecting the agreed judgment sum, and liberty to apply in relation to costs. The exhibits were to be retained for 28 days, allowing for any necessary review or appeal. This decision highlights the importance of considering obvious risks, practicable interim measures, and adequate warnings in cases of public safety and negligence.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant.
(2) Liberty to the parties to bring in Short Minutes of Order reflecting the mathematically agreed judgment sum.
(3) The defendant is to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings as agreed or assessed.
(4) Liberty to apply in relation to costs.
(5) Exhibits to be retained for 28 days.
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.