Shephard v Loxton Hotel-Motel Inc. No. DCCIV-97-30704 Judgment No. D3826 - [1998] SADC 4013

SHEPHARD & OTHERS V LOXTON COMMUNITY HOTEL-MOTEL INC.

Civil
Judge Bright

The plaintiff was born in 1933. She married in 1972 and has four adult children. Her training was as a nurse and she worked at that calling until 1987. Her husband is an expert in grafting grape vine cuttings for commercial vineyards. He and she set up a business to do this. I will describe it in more detail later. They live in Loxton.

The defendant is the community owned hotel in Loxton. Shortly before the events of this case those premises were altered so that poker machines could be installed. Of relevance, what had been a private function room became the main dining room. A dance floor which had formed part of the former room was retained.

The natural course for patrons who visited to dine was to cross that dance floor to a counter where the menu could be read and meals could be ordered. It would have been possible to cross a corner of the dance floor, get onto the carpet and then weave one’s way amongst tables to get to that counter, but that was not the practice. The defendant expected patrons to traverse the dance floor.

Ms. Cusick was appointed manager in August 1994. She realised that the dance floor was too slippery to be suitable as a trafficked thoroughfare. She found that the hotel had some spare carpet matching surrounding areas, but not enough to fully cover the dance floor. She placed an order for more carpet. It took some time as it had to be specially made.

On 8 October 1994, the plaintiff, with other members of her family, went to the hotel for dinner. Her husband and son walked across the dance floor - and had no problem. Her son’s partner went next and as she crossed slipped a little but caught herself. The plaintiff noticed this and almost at once herself slipped. Her feet went forward and she sat down heavily. She was embarrassed and got up quickly, helped by her husband and son. Though they ordered and ate dinner, and thereafter she returned to her work, her back soon became painful and it is for that that she claims in this action.

Mr. Maddern, a consulting engineer, has made something of a speciality of examining floors on which people have fallen. Some time ago he examined a number of premises in Rundle Mall in common use by shoppers to develop a set of background data against which to compare floors said to be slippery. He recorded the coefficients of friction between a number of floor surfaces (wet and dry) and a number of common shoe sole materials.

The dance floor in this case is of polished timber. The plaintiff was wearing unremarkable leather shoes. There is no suggestion of any spills on the floor, or of foreign material adhering to the shoes. Both were dry.

Mr. Maddern examined the dance floor and ascertained the co-efficient of friction between it…

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 Shephard v Loxton Hotel-Motel Inc. No. DCCIV-97-30704 Judgme...

Details

AGLC: Shephard v Loxton Hotel-Motel Inc. No. DCCIV-97-30704 Judgment No. D3826 [1998] SADC 4013
Case: [1998] SADC 4013
Decision Date: 4 June 1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Shephard v Loxton Hotel-Motel Inc., the plaintiff, Mrs Shephard, sought damages for injuries sustained from a fall at the defendant's premises. The defendant, Loxton Hotel-Motel Inc., was found liable for the injuries suffered by Mrs Shephard, who slipped on a slippery dance floor while visiting the hotel for dinner with her family. The key issue was whether the defendant had breached its duty of care by not taking reasonable steps to prevent such accidents. The court found that a simple precaution, such as placing a temporary runner over the dance floor, could have been taken to mitigate the risk. The court held that the defendant was liable for failing to take such precautions.

The court also considered the plaintiff's contributory negligence, but found that she had not failed to take reasonable care for her own safety. The plaintiff's damages for pain and suffering, special damages, assistance, and economic loss were assessed. The court awarded Mrs Shephard a total of $112,324.90 in damages, and her husband $8,800 for loss of consortium. The parties were to be heard on costs, and the possibility of varying the judgment to reflect a split entitlement in respect of Mrs Shephard's lost earning capacity was noted.

Orders