Nihill v Vivien's Model and Theatrical Management
Case
•
[2020] NSWDC 131
•22 April 2020
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Nihill v Vivien's Model and Theatrical Management [2020] NSWDC 131
[2020] NSWDC 131
22 April 2020
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Nihill sued Vivien's Model and Theatrical Management, along with a second defendant, for injuries sustained during a photoshoot arranged by Vivien's. The incident occurred at a national park when Nihill slipped and fell at rock pools. The court had to determine whether Vivien's Model and Theatrical Management breached a duty of care owed to Nihill, and whether the second defendant owed such a duty. The court also had to consider whether an informal contract existed between Nihill and Vivien's, and if so, whether it was breached by failing to secure appropriate insurance.
The court analysed the meaning of recreational activity, dangerous recreational activity, and obvious risk under s 5F and 5L of the Civil Liability Act, concluding that the activity at the national park qualified as a recreational activity with obvious risks. The court determined that s 5M of the Civil Liability Act did not apply, and thus the defendants were not shielded from liability. However, the court found that Vivien's Model and Theatrical Management did not breach a duty of care, as the risks involved in the activity were obvious. Additionally, the second defendant did not owe a duty of care to Nihill, as there was no evidence of harm suffered by Nihill or the second defendant's ability to satisfy a potential verdict.
Furthermore, the court considered whether Vivien's Model and Theatrical Management was negligent in releasing the second defendant from the obligation to have insurance. The court found that the risk of economic harm to Nihill due to a lack of insurance was not foreseeable, and thus no duty of care was breached. There was also no evidence that Nihill suffered harm or that the second defendant had the capacity to satisfy a potential verdict.
In conclusion, the court ordered a verdict and judgment for the defendants on Nihill's claim, dismissed the cross claim, and ordered that Nihill pay the defendants' costs on the claim. There was to be no order as to costs on the cross claim.
The court analysed the meaning of recreational activity, dangerous recreational activity, and obvious risk under s 5F and 5L of the Civil Liability Act, concluding that the activity at the national park qualified as a recreational activity with obvious risks. The court determined that s 5M of the Civil Liability Act did not apply, and thus the defendants were not shielded from liability. However, the court found that Vivien's Model and Theatrical Management did not breach a duty of care, as the risks involved in the activity were obvious. Additionally, the second defendant did not owe a duty of care to Nihill, as there was no evidence of harm suffered by Nihill or the second defendant's ability to satisfy a potential verdict.
Furthermore, the court considered whether Vivien's Model and Theatrical Management was negligent in releasing the second defendant from the obligation to have insurance. The court found that the risk of economic harm to Nihill due to a lack of insurance was not foreseeable, and thus no duty of care was breached. There was also no evidence that Nihill suffered harm or that the second defendant had the capacity to satisfy a potential verdict.
In conclusion, the court ordered a verdict and judgment for the defendants on Nihill's claim, dismissed the cross claim, and ordered that Nihill pay the defendants' costs on the claim. There was to be no order as to costs on the cross claim.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Tort Law
-
Contract Law
Legal Concepts
-
Negligence
-
Breach of Contract
-
Compensatory Damages
-
Recreational Activity
-
Duty of Care
-
Foreseeability of Harm
-
Non-economic Loss
-
Economic Loss
-
Standing
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
55
Statutory Material Cited
3
Fuller-Lyons v New South Wales
[2015] HCA 31
Strong v Woolworths Ltd
[2012] HCA 5
CSR Ltd v Adecco (Australia) Pty Ltd
[2017] NSWCA 121