Horne v J K Williams Contracting Pty Limited

Link copied
Case Copied 72 min read

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Horne v J K WILLIAMS CONTRACTING PTY LIMITED [2022] NSWDC 135
Hearing dates: 01 – 03 March, 1 and 14 April 2022
Date of orders: 29 April 2022
Decision date: 29 April 2022
Jurisdiction:Civil
Before: Gibson DCJ
Decision:

Orders:

(1)   Judgment for the defendant.

(2)   Costs reserved, with liberty to apply.

(3)   Exhibits retained until further order.

Catchwords:

TORT - personal injury - barricades erected at building site - site illuminated at night by two traffic lights - one of the traffic lights fails - plaintiff collided with the barricade while riding his bicycle at night - whether risk of harm foreseeable and not insignificant - whether the defendant’s response to the risk of harm was one that a reasonable person would have taken -whether risk obvious

Legislation Cited:

Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) ss 5B – 5H, 5L, 15

Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) ss 56-58

Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) ss 50C 50D

Cases Cited:

Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak; Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Bou Najam (2009) 239 CLR 420

Alameddine v Glenn Worth Valley Horseriding Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCA 219

Angel v Hawkesbury City Council (2008) Aust Torts Reports ¶81-955

Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University [2009] HCA 27; 239 CLR 175

Baker-Morrison v State of New South Wales [2009] NSWCA 35

Best v Rosamund [2020] NSWCA 90

Blacktown City Council v Hocking (2008) Aust Torts Reports ¶81-956

Collins v Clarence Valley Council (No 3) [2013] NSWSC 1682

Container Terminals Australia v Huseyin [2008] NSWCA 320

Cox v Mid-Coast Council [2021] NSWCA 190

Garzo v Liverpool/Campbelltown Christian School Limited & Anor [2011] NSWSC 292

Goodrich Aerospace Pty Ltd v Arsic (2006) 66 NSWLR 186

Hill v Richards [2011] NSWCA 291

Jaenke v Hinton [1995] QCA 484

Kappadoukas v Fransepp Pty Ltd [2006] NSWCA 366

Lloyd v Thornbury [2019] NSWCA 154

Mason v Demasi [2009] NSWCA 227

Mastronardi v State of New South Wales [2009] NSWCA 270

Miller v Galderisi [2009] NSWCA 363

Pomare v White [2019] NSWCA 317

Purkiss v Crittenden [1965] 114 CLR 764

Seltsam Pty Ltd v Ghaleb [2005] NSWCA 208

Sibraa v Brown [2012] NSWCA 328

Stojan (No 9) Pty Ltd v Kenway [2009] NSWCA 364

Sutherland Shire Council v Henshaw [2004] NSWCA 386

Temora Shire Council v Stein (2004) 134 LGERA 407; [2004] NSWCA 236

Thompson v Woolworths (Queensland) Pty Ltd (2005) 221 CLR 234

Watts v Rake (1960) 100 CLR 158

Wyong Shire Council v Vairy; Mulligan v Coffs Harbour City Council (2004) Aust Torts Reports 81-754; [2004] NSWCA 247

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Plaintiff: Antony Horne
Defendant: J K Williams Contracting Pty Limited
Representation:

Counsel:
Plaintiff: Mr G Hickey
Defendant: Mr R Gambi

Solicitors:
Plaintiff: LawAdvice Compensation Lawyers
Defendant: Hall and Wilcox
File Number(s): 2021/00053128

Judgment

The parties and the pleadings

  1. The defendant carries out building activities and construction work. In January 2017, it was engaged in building activities on and adjacent to Victoria Road Werrington…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Horne v J K Williams Contracting Pty Limited and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2022] NSWDC 135
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Horne, brought an action against J K Williams Contracting Pty Limited, alleging negligence that resulted in personal injury. The incident occurred when Horne collided with a barricade while riding his bicycle at night on a road adjacent to a building site. The site was secured with barricades and illuminated by two traffic lights. One of the traffic lights malfunctioned, leading to the plaintiff’s collision. The case was heard in the Magistrates Court of Victoria.

The court was tasked with determining whether the risk of harm to the plaintiff was foreseeable and not insignificant. Further, it needed to assess whether the defendant’s response to this risk was in line with what a reasonable person would have taken. Another key issue was whether the risk posed by the failed traffic light was obvious to the plaintiff. The court had to consider whether the defendant’s actions were adequate to protect against the foreseeable harm.

The court found that the risk of harm was foreseeable but not significant enough to impose a duty of care on the defendant. It was held that the risk was obvious to an observant cyclist, and the defendant's response in maintaining a single functioning traffic light was considered reasonable. The court concluded that the plaintiff’s injury was due to his failure to exercise reasonable care, rather than any fault on the part of the defendant.

The court entered judgment in favour of the defendant, with costs reserved for potential application. The exhibits were retained pending further order.

Orders

Orders of the court

Orders:

(1) Judgment for the defendant.

(2) Costs reserved, with liberty to apply.

(3) Exhibits retained until further order.

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.