Homestyle Pty Ltd v Perrozzi

Case [2007] WASCA 16


HOMESTYLE PTY LTD -v- PERROZZI [2007] WASCA 16



(2007) 33 WAR 209
SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2007] WASCA 16
THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
Case No:CACV:100/20054 SEPTEMBER 2006
Coram:MARTIN CJ
ROBERTS-SMITH JA
BUSS JA
18/01/07
26Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Appeal dismissed
A
PDF Version
Parties:HOMESTYLE PTY LTD
JOSEPH ANTHONY PERROZZI

Catchwords:

Negligence
Occupiers' liability
Where respondent collided with unmarked transparent glass in closed door at entrance to display home and fell backwards
Relationship between the Occupiers' Liability Act 1985 (WA) and common law principles
Whether risk of injury reasonably foreseeable
Obviousness of risk
Standard of care
Whether glass should have been marked by a motif or other decorative treatment
The relevance of Australian Standard 1288
Negligence
Contributory negligence
Challenge to trial Judge's apportionment
Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Occupiers' Liability Act 1985 (WA), s 2, s 4, s 5

Case References:

Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna (1987) 162 CLR 479
British Fame (Owners) v MacGregor (Owners) [1943] AC 197
Brodie v Singleton Shire Council; Ghantous v Hawkesbury City Council (2001) 206 CLR 512
Bryant v Fawdon Pty Ltd (1993) A Tort Rep 81-204
Coatz v WestCourt Ltd [2003] WASCA 49
Consolidated Broken Hill Ltd v Edwards (2005) A Tort Rep 81-815
Geroheev Pty Ltd v Wheare [2004] WASCA 206
Hackshaw v Shaw (1984) 155 CLR 614
Howells v Murray River North Pty Ltd [2004] WASCA 276
Jones v Bartlett (2000) 205 CLR 166
Koehler v Cerebos (Aust) Ltd (2005) 222 CLR 44
Kschammer v R W Piper & Sons Pty Ltd [2003] WASCA 298
Langham v Connells Point Rovers Soccer Club Inc [2005] NSWCA 461
Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil (2000) 205 CLR 254
Nagle v Rottnest Island Authority (1993) 177 CLR 423
Neindorf v Junkovic (2005) 80 ALJR 341
Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co Pty; The Wagon Mound (No 2) [1967] 1 AC 617
Pennington v Norris (1956) 96 CLR 10
Phillis v Daly (1988) 15 NSWLR 65
Podrebersek v Australian Iron & Steel Pty Ltd (1985) 59 ALJR 492
Romeo v Conservation Commission of The Northern Territory (1998) 192 CLR 431
Thompson v Woolworths (Q'land) Pty Ltd (2005) 221 CLR 234
Timberland Property Holdings Pty Ltd v Bundy [2005] NSWCA 419
Tonich v Macaw Nominees Pty Ltd, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 940119; 11 March 1994
Town of Mosman Park v Tait (2005) 141 LGERA 171
Uzabeaga v Town of Cottesloe (2004) A Tort Rep 81-739
Vairy v Wyong Shire Council (2005) 223 CLR 422
Webb v South Australia (1982) 56 ALJR 912
Wynbergen v Hoyts Corporation Pty Ltd (1997) 72 ALJR 65
Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40

Czatyrko v Edith Cowan University (2005) 79 ALJR 839
Dailly v Spot-on Investments Pty Ltd (1995) A Tort Rep 81-363
David Jones Ltd v Bates [2001] NSWCA 233
Gondoline Pty Ltd v Hansford [2002] WASCA…

Continue reading Homestyle Pty Ltd v Perrozzi

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Homestyle Pty Ltd v Perrozzi [2007] WASCA 16
Case
[2007] WASCA 16
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Homestyle Pty Ltd was sued by Mr Perrozzi for injuries he sustained when he collided with an unmarked transparent glass panel in a closed door at the entrance of a display home. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The main issues before the court were whether the risk of injury was reasonably foreseeable, the obviousness of the risk, the standard of care that should have been applied, and whether the glass should have been marked to make it more visible. Additionally, the court examined the relevance of the Australian Standard 1288 and the apportionment of contributory negligence.

The court held that the risk of injury was reasonably foreseeable, and the door's design did not meet the standard of care expected under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1985 (WA). The unmarked transparent glass panel constituted a significant risk of injury, and the failure to mark it or apply a decorative treatment to increase its visibility breached the standard of care. The court also noted that the Australian Standard 1288 provided a useful guide in assessing the standard of care but was not determinative of the case. In apportioning contributory negligence, the court found that the trial judge's assessment was based on the specific facts of the case and was not an error of law.

The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial judge's decision. The final orders were that the appeal was dismissed, and the original judgment remained in place.

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.