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 LimitedRepresentation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Plaintiff: Mr G Hickey
Defendant: Mr R Gambi
Plaintiff: LawAdvice Compensation Lawyers
Defendant: Hall and Wilcox
File Number(s): 2021/00053128
Judgment
The parties and the pleadings
-
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…
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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2022] NSWDC 135
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.