Schuller v S J Webb Nominees P/L - [2014] SADC 178

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil)
SCHULLER v S J WEBB NOMINEES P/L
[2014] SADC 178
Judgment of His Honour Judge Stretton
30 October 2014
TORTS - NEGLIGENCE - ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE - DUTY OF CARE - SPECIAL RELATIONSHIPS AND DUTIES - OCCUPIERS
TORTS - NEGLIGENCE - DANGEROUS PREMISES - INJURIES TO PERSONS ENTERING PREMISES - LIABILITY GENERALLY
DAMAGES - GENERAL PRINCIPLES - GENERAL AND SPECIAL DAMAGES
The plaintiff attended the Port Broughton Sunnyside Hotel Motel on Friday 17 April 2009. In the course of the evening she drank, socialised and listened to the band which would play in the saloon bar on Friday nights between about 9pm and 12.30am. Near the end of the evening the plaintiff got up on a chair to dance to the music, slipped, fell, and seriously injured her knee. She sued the hotel claiming they sold her too much alcohol and did not prevent her from dancing on the chair and injuring herself. There was a factual dispute in relation to the events of the evening, in particular how much the plaintiff had to drink, whether she was told not to dance on the chair, whether she was cut off from alcohol service, and what other actions the Hotel took in response to her conduct.
HELD:
1. The plaintiff got up on a chair three times. On the first occasion she was immediately told to get down and complied. On the second occasion she was told to get down, cut off alcohol service and given a ‘first and final warning’. On the third occasion bar staff repeatedly yelled to her to get down, which warning she ignored, continued dancing, then slipped and fell.
2. Since the decision in Cal No 14 P/L v Motor Accidents Board [2009] HCA 47, it is clear that in the absence of exceptional circumstances licensed premises owe no duty to protect customers from the consequences of the alcohol they choose to consume. There were no exceptional circumstances in this case.
3. The Hotel maintained and conducted its premises in a safe manner and condition.
4. The Hotel was not negligent and did not breach any duty it had to the plaintiff.
5. The plaintiff is entirely responsible for her own injuries.
6. The plaintiff’s claim is dismissed.
Civil Liability Act (1936) sections 36, 37, 52, 54; Liquor Licensing Act (1997) s 32; Office of the Liquor and Gambling Commissioner Code of Practice , referred to.
Cal No 14 P/L v Motor Accidents Board [2009] HCA 47, applied.
Cole v South Tweed Heads Rugby League Football Club [2004] HCA 29, considered.

SCHULLER v S J WEBB NOMINEES P/L
[2014] SADC 178
The plaintiff falls off a chair

At about 8.30pm on Friday 17 April 2009 the plaintiff Bianca Schuller finished working the evening shift at a Port Broughton café. She had arranged for her partner to care for her nine year old daughter Chloe so she could catch up with friends and hear the band…

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 Schuller v S J Webb Nominees P/L 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: [2014] SADC 178
Decision Date: 30 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Schuller v S J Webb Nominees P/L, the plaintiff alleged negligence against the defendant, a hotel, following an incident where she slipped and fell after ignoring warnings from bar staff to get down from a chair. The plaintiff claimed that the hotel was negligent in failing to prevent her from drinking alcohol and then dancing on the chair, which led to her fall. The case was heard by the court which had to determine if the hotel owed a duty of care to the plaintiff that it failed to fulfil, and if so, whether this breach of duty caused the plaintiff’s injuries.

The court considered whether the hotel had a special duty of care towards the plaintiff given their relationship as occupier and customer. It also assessed whether the hotel was negligent in allowing the plaintiff to drink alcohol and subsequently dance on a chair, which led to her fall. The court examined if the hotel maintained and conducted its premises in a safe manner and whether the plaintiff’s own actions contributed to her injuries.

The court held that the plaintiff had been warned on multiple occasions to get down from the chair and ignored these warnings on the occasion of her fall. It found that in the absence of exceptional circumstances, a hotel does not owe a duty to protect customers from the consequences of the alcohol they choose to consume. The court determined that there were no exceptional circumstances in this case, and the hotel had maintained and conducted its premises in a safe manner. Therefore, the hotel was not negligent and did not breach any duty it had to the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s claim was dismissed, and she was found to be entirely responsible for her own injuries.

The court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim and made no orders for damages. The decision underscores that licensed premises generally do not owe a duty of care to prevent customers from the consequences of their voluntary consumption of alcohol, absent exceptional circumstances.

Orders

Orders of the court

HELD:

1. The plaintiff got up on a chair three times. On the first occasion she was immediately told to get down and complied. On the second occasion she was told to get down, cut off alcohol service and given a ‘first and final warning’. On the third occasion bar staff repeatedly yelled to her to get down, which warning she ignored, continued dancing, then slipped and fell.

2. Since the decision in Cal No 14 P/L v Motor Accidents Board [2009] HCA 47, it is clear that in the absence of exceptional circumstances licensed premises owe no duty to protect customers from the consequences of the alcohol they choose to consume. There were no exceptional circumstances in this case.

3. The Hotel maintained and conducted its premises in a safe manner and condition.

4. The Hotel was not negligent and did not breach any duty it had to the plaintiff.

5. The plaintiff is entirely responsible for her own injuries.

6. The plaintiff’s claim is 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.