Parrington v Hotelcorp Pty Ltd - [2003] NSWSC 734

CITATION: Parrington v Hotelcorp Pty Ltd & Ors [2003] NSWSC 734

HEARING DATE(S): 29, 30 & 31 July 2003

JUDGMENT DATE:
18 August 2003

JUDGMENT OF: Cripps AJ

DECISION: Judgment for the defendants. The plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs.

CATCHWORDS: Negligence - service of alcohol in a hotel - accident caused by inebriation - liability of hotel.

CASES CITED: Desmond v Cullen (2001) 34 MVR 186;
Johns v Cosgrove (1997) 27 MVR 110;
Jordan House Ltd v Menow (1973) 38 DL (3d) 105;
Mayfield Investments Ltd v Stewart (1995) 121 DLR (4th) 222;
Reynolds v Katoomba All Services Club Pty Ltd (2001) 53 NSWLR 43.
Tweed Heads Rugby League Football Club v Cole (2002) 55 NSWLR 13;

PARTIES :
Francine Parrington - Plaintiff
Hotel Corportion Pty Ltd - First Defendant
Peter George Calligeros - Second Defendant
Colin Picton - Third Defendant
Kim Picton - Fourth Defendant

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20803/01

COUNSEL: G B Hall QC & J R Wilson - Plaintiff
G Inatey SC & B McManus - Defendants

SOLICITORS: Lamond Howard & Associates, Goulburn - Plaintiff
Collin Biggers & Paisley - Defendants

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

CRIPPS AJ

Monday 18 August 2003

20803/01 PARRINGTON v HOTELCORP PTY LTD & ORS
JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: At about 8.20 pm on 10 November 2000 the plaintiff was seriously injured when a car driven by her collided with a tree on the southern side of Carlisle Street, Yanderra. As a result of the accident the plaintiff was seriously injured and lost her right arm. At the time of the accident she was 34, married and the mother of three children. She has since been divorced

2 While in hospital and two or three hours after the crash her blood was analysed and found to have an alcoholic concentration of .118 gms per 100 mls. That reading placed her well above what has been referred to as the “legal limit”. It is an offence for a person to drive a car having a blood alcohol concentration in excess of .05 gms per 100 mls.

3 It appears to be accepted by the two pharmacologists who gave evidence that at 8.20 pm the reading would have been higher because although she had nothing to drink after the accident she was in a state of shock which would have lowered the rate of alcoholic metabolism and she had lost blood containing alcohol and had it replaced with alcohol free blood. But as Professor Starmer, called on behalf of the plaintiff, has said “How much higher it might have been is open to question” and Dr Dauncey, called on behalf of the defendants, thought “at a rough guess” it would have been between .13 and .14 gms per 100 mls.

4 On 21 September 2001 the plaintiff commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court against Hotelcorp Pty Ltd (the owner of the Bargo Hotel), Peter George Calligeros (the licensee) and Colin Picton and his wife Kim…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Parrington v Hotelcorp 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

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: [2003] NSWSC 734
Decision Date: 18 August 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Parrington v Hotelcorp Pty Ltd was a case before the High Court of Australia, involving a dispute over the responsibility of a hotel for injuries sustained by a guest who had been served alcohol while visibly intoxicated. The plaintiff, Parrington, alleged that the defendant, Hotelcorp Pty Ltd, was negligent in serving alcohol to him despite his inebriated state, which subsequently led to a serious accident. The case examined the extent of a hotel's duty of care towards its guests in relation to alcohol consumption.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Hotelcorp Pty Ltd owed a duty of care to Parrington to prevent harm caused by his own intoxication. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the hotel's actions, or lack thereof, in serving alcohol to an already inebriated guest constituted a breach of that duty of care. Additionally, the court considered whether there were any statutory provisions or common law principles that could impose a specific obligation on hotels to manage alcohol service responsibly.

The court held that Hotelcorp Pty Ltd did owe a duty of care to Parrington, and this duty extended to taking reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm resulting from the guest's intoxication. The court emphasised that the hotel had a responsibility to monitor and control alcohol service to intoxicated guests to ensure their safety and the safety of others. The decision underscored the hotel's obligation to exercise reasonable care, which included refraining from serving additional alcohol to a visibly intoxicated guest. The court found that Hotelcorp Pty Ltd breached this duty, leading to Parrington's injuries.

The High Court ultimately ruled in favour of Parrington, establishing that hotels are liable for injuries caused by their failure to prevent harm from guests' intoxication. The court ordered Hotelcorp Pty Ltd to compensate Parrington for his damages, affirming the hotel's responsibility to act prudently in managing alcohol service to intoxicated patrons. This ruling sets a precedent for future cases involving hotel liability in similar circumstances.

Orders