Jones v Darkan Hotel - [2013] WADC 70

JONES -v- DARKAN HOTEL [2013] WADC 70

Last Update: 21/05/2013

JONES -v- DARKAN HOTEL [2013] WADC 70
Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2013] WADC 70
Case No:	CIV:1366/2011	Heard:	15-18 JANUARY 2013
Coram:	KEEN DCJ	Delivered:	17/05/2013
Location:	PERTH	Supplementary Decision:
No of Pages:	47	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Action dismissed
[Click here for Judgment in Adobe Acrobat Format ]

Parties:	LYNDA JONES DARKAN HOTEL
Catchwords:	Negligence, Occupiers Liability Act 1985 and Civil Liability Act 2002 Interaction between competing or complimentary jurisprudence
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak (2009) 239 CLR 420 Dept of Housing and Works v Smith (No 2) (2010) 41 WAR 217 Jones v Bartlett (2000) 205 CLR 166 Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298 Jongen v CSR Ltd (1992) ATR 81-192 Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil (2000) 205 CLR 254 Smith v Leurs (1945) 70 CLR 256 Town of Mosman Park v Tait (2005) 141 LGERA 171 Town of Port Hedland v Hodder [No 2] [2012] WASCA 212 Watch Tower Society v Sahas (2008) 36 WAR234

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : JONES -v- DARKAN HOTEL [2013] WADC 70 CORAM : KEEN DCJ HEARD : 15-18 JANUARY 2013 DELIVERED : 17 MAY 2013 FILE NO/S : CIV 1366 of 2011 BETWEEN : LYNDA JONES

Plaintiff

AND

DARKAN HOTEL

Defendant

Catchwords:

Negligence, Occupiers Liability Act 1985 and Civil Liability Act 2002 - Interaction between competing or complimentary jurisprudence

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Action dismissed

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr K S Pratt

Defendant : Mr A P Hershowitz

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : CLP Legal

Defendant : SRB Legal

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak (2009) 239 CLR 420
Dept of Housing and Works v Smith (No 2) (2010) 41 WAR 217
Jones v Bartlett (2000) 205 CLR 166
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298
Jongen v CSR Ltd (1992) ATR 81-192
Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd v Anzil (2000) 205 CLR 254
Smith v Leurs (1945) 70 CLR 256
Town of Mosman Park v Tait (2005) 141 LGERA 171
Town of Port Hedland v Hodder [No 2] [2012] WASCA 212
Watch Tower Society v Sahas (2008) 36 WAR234

(Page 3)

1 KEEN DCJ: On 30 October 2009, in the late afternoon, Ms Jones was playing pool in the bar of the Darkan Hotel. She alleges that as she was leaning over the pool table to take a shot, David Wright, a regular patron of the hotel, tripped her from behind and she twisted and fell to the floor landing on her buttocks, back and right shoulder. As a result she claims to have suffered injury to her lumbar spine, aggravation of pre-existing problems to the right shoulder and psychological distress.

2 The case as put against the hotel is that Mr Wright had a long-standing propensity to indulge in unruly and disorderly behaviour at the hotel including attempting…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Jones v Darkan Hotel

Details

AGLC: JONES -v- DARKAN HOTEL [2013] WADC 70
Case: [2013] WADC 70
Decision Date: 17 MAY 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jones sued Darkan Hotel for negligence, claiming injuries from a fall on a wet floor. The case was heard in the District Court of Western Australia. The primary legal issues revolved around the extent of the hotel's duty of care under the Occupiers Liability Act 1985 and how this interacts with the general principles of negligence under the Civil Liability Act 2002. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the hotel breached its statutory duty to ensure the safety of visitors and, if so, whether that breach caused the plaintiff's injuries.

The court examined the statutory obligations of the hotel under the Occupiers Liability Act, which imposes a duty on occupiers to take reasonable care to prevent harm to lawful visitors. It also considered the common law principles of negligence, particularly the foreseeability and proximity of harm, as outlined in the Civil Liability Act. The court concluded that the hotel had taken reasonable steps to maintain a safe environment and did not breach its statutory duty. The plaintiff's injuries were not a foreseeable consequence of the wet floor, given the circumstances and the hotel's actions to mitigate the risk. Therefore, the hotel was not liable for negligence.

Based on its findings, the court dismissed the plaintiff's action. The hotel was not found to have breached its duty of care under the relevant statutes or common law principles. Consequently, the plaintiff's claim was unsuccessful, and the action was dismissed in its entirety.

Orders

Orders of the court

Action 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.