District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Langendoen v Coolangatta Estate Pty Ltd [2012] NSWDC 210 Hearing dates: 06/11/2012 - 07/11/2012 Decision date: 09 November 2012 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: Elkaim SC DCJ - at Wollongong District Court Decision: Verdict for the plaintiff for $168,516.54
Catchwords: Personal injury, intoxication Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002 Cases Cited: Amanda's On The Edge Pty Ltd v Dries [2011] NSWCA 358
Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna (1987) 162 CLR 479
Clifton & Ors v Lewis [2012] NSWCA 229
Container Terminals Australia Ltd v Huseyin [2008] NSWCA 320
Mason v Demasi [2009] NSWCA 227
Rabay v Bristow [2005] NSWCA 199Category: Principal judgment Parties: Sharon Langendoen (Plaintiff)
Coolangatta Estate Pty Ltd (Defendant)Representation: S Longhurst (Plaintiff)
J Turnbull (Defendant)
Kells The Lawyers (Plaintiff)
McCulloch & Buggy (Defendant)
File Number(s): 2011/00321859 Publication restriction: No
Judgment
The plaintiff was born in 1959 in South Wales. She came to Australia in 1966. She has led a generally active life, working, bringing up children and engaging in recreational activities. Unfortunately tragedy has also intervened. Her daughter Kelly committed suicide in 2001 and one of Kelly's children has serious learning difficulties.
The plaintiff's personal experiences led her to an occupation in which she directed her efforts to the care of disabled children. As at November 2008 she was working at Warilla High School as a "Teacher's Aide Special" assisting with children with a mental illness.
As part of her occupational eduction the plaintiff attended a Youth Conference at the Coolangatta Estate Winery, owned and run by the defendant. The conference took place on 6 and 7 November 2008. The plaintiff fell off a wall in the early hours of 7 November. She was injured. She blames the defendant for her injuries and seeks damages under the following heads: Non-economic loss, past and future economic loss, past and future domestic care and medical expenses.
The action is governed by the Civil Liability Act 2002 (the "CLA"). Sections 5B, 5D, 5E, and 50 are of particular relevance.
The plaintiff's injuries were not greatly in dispute although the defendant did challenge the extent of the damages that allegedly flowed from them. The defendant conceded that, as an occupier, it owed the plaintiff a duty of care. It denied that there had been any breach of that duty of care. The main focus of the case however was not on the breach. Primarily the defendant said that the plaintiff's injuries were of her own making, in particular that she was intoxicated to an extent that provided a complete defence to the claim under Section 50(2) of the CLA or at least a substantial reduction for contributory negligence under Section 50(3).
The fall
The plaintiff's version of the events of 6 November 2008 is as follows: she went to the conference with her friend and fellow Warilla High School employee, Ms Marion Moore. She attended various seminars through the day. At about 4.30pm she returned to her room, had a…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Langendoen v Coolangatta Estate Pty Ltd 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
- [2012] NSWDC 210
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine the extent of the defendant's liability under the common law duty of care owed to visitors on their property. Additionally, the court had to assess the degree to which the plaintiff's own intoxication influenced the causation of the injury, potentially reducing the defendant's liability under the principles of contributory negligence. The court's decision hinged on interpreting statutory provisions and applying established common law principles regarding duty of care and contributory negligence.
The court found that the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff despite the plaintiff's intoxication. This duty included taking reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm to visitors, even those who were intoxicated. The court held that the defendant's failure to provide adequate warning signs and ensure the safe condition of the pathway contributed to the plaintiff's fall. In terms of contributory negligence, the court acknowledged the plaintiff's intoxication but determined that it did not absolve the defendant of liability. Instead, the court apportioned liability, reducing the damages payable to the plaintiff by 25% for contributory negligence. The court awarded the plaintiff $168,516.54 in damages.
Orders
Orders of the court
Verdict for the plaintiff for $168,516.54
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.