JUDGMENT
1 The Plaintiff in this case, who was born on 5 December 1966 and is now 38 years of age, was injured when she fell whilst walking on a footpath on Shoal Bay Road, New South Wales. There is no dispute that she suffered injuries on 18 January 2002 as a result of the fall – a spiral comminuted fracture of the left ankle of both the tibia and the fibula – or that the ankle had to be fixed with plates and screws. She also suffered superficial burns to her buttocks because the…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Theodorakakis v Telstra Corporation Limited 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
- [2005] NSWDC 11
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered whether the defect was obvious and whether the council's budgetary constraints were relevant to their duty of care. It was held that the defect was not obvious and that budgetary constraints did not absolve the council from its duty of care. The court also examined the burden of proof and whether section 45 of the Civil Liability Act applied, which concerns the assessment of damages in cases of contributory negligence. The court found that the plaintiff had not met the burden of proving a breach of duty on the part of the defendant, and therefore the claim failed. The court also ruled that contributory negligence applied, reducing the potential damages recoverable by the plaintiff.
Telstra was found not liable for the plaintiff's injuries. The court determined that the council had failed to exercise reasonable care in maintaining the footpath, and therefore was liable for the plaintiff's injuries. However, due to the contributory negligence of the plaintiff, the damages were reduced accordingly. The final orders of the court included that Telstra was not liable for any damages, the council was liable for damages reduced by the plaintiff's contributory negligence, and specific details of the quantum of damages were to be determined in accordance with the court's findings.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [73].
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.