Turnbull v Alm

Case [2004] NSWCA 173


CITATION: TURNBULL v. ALM & ANOR [2004] NSWCA 173
HEARING DATE(S): 02/06/2004
JUDGMENT DATE:
26 August 2004
JUDGMENT OF: Giles JA at 1; Tobias JA at 2; Bryson JA at 3
DECISION: Dismiss appeal by Occupier against Entrant: allow cross-appeals so as to award 50% contribution against City Council; See para [79]
CATCHWORDS: NEGLIGENCE - Occupier's Liability - footpath on private land outside shops at periphery of shopping area - Occupier landlord leased out shops and retained Common Areas including footpath - plaintiff using footpath while shopping after dark tripped and fell in hole 4" wide 6" long 1" deep in otherwise regular concrete footpath - Trial Judge wrongly applied test requiring Occupier to ensure safety - liability reconsidered on facts - challenges to factual findings of Trial Judge considered - City Council repaired footpath inadequately several times - Occupier took no action to repair - negligence found against both and apportioned 50%-50%.
LEGISLATION CITED: Evidence Act 1995 s.54
CASES CITED: Tame v. State of New South Wales; Annetts v. Australian Stations Pty Ltd (2002) 211 CLR 317
Cafest Holdings Pty Ltd v. Tombleson [2003] NSWCA 210
Australian Safeway Stores Ltd v. Zaluzna (1987) 162 CLR 479
Phillis v. Daly (1988) 15 NSWLR 65
Wyong Shire Council v. Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40
Waverley Municipal Council v. Swain [2003] NSWCA 61
David Jones Ltd v. Bates [2001] NSWCA 233
Richmond Valley Council v. Standing [2002] NSWCA 359
Brodie v. Singleton Shire Council; Ghantous v. Hawkesbury Shire Council (2001) 206 CLR 512

PARTIES :

Gai Lynette Turnbull - Appellant
Gillian Thesere Alm - Respondent/Cross-Appellant
The Council of the City of Dubbo - Cross-Respondent
FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40911/2003
COUNSEL: J. Maconachie QC and P. Perry - Appellant
L. King SC and P. Regattieri - Respondent/Cross-Appellant
P. Arden SC and R. Anthony - Cross-Respondent
SOLICITORS: Ebsworth & Ebsworth - Appellant
Peacocke, Dickens & Price - Respondent/Cross-Appellant
Leitch Hasson Dent - Cross-Respondent
LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 21 of 2002
LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER :
Woods DCJ


                            40911/2003

                            GILES JA
                            TOBIAS JA
                            BRYSON JA

                            Thursday 26 August 2004
GAI LYNETTE TURNBULL v. GILLIAN THERESE ALM & THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBBO
Judgment

1 GILES JA: I agree with Bryson JA.

2 TOBIAS JA: I agree with Bryson JA.

3 BRYSON JA: The appellant Mrs Turnbull appeals from the decision of Sir Robert Woods CBE, Acting District Court Judge, in the District Court at Dubbo on 19 September 2003. The respondent Mrs Alm as plaintiff claimed damages for personal injuries which she suffered on 3 July 2001 when she stepped into a hole in the footpath adjacent to shops in Tamworth Street, Dubbo, fell and sustained injuries. In the District Court Mrs Turnbull was the first defendant; the Council of the City of Dubbo (“the City Council”) was the second defendant and the learned Trial Judge gave judgment for Mrs Alm against Mrs Turnbull, and judgment for the City Council against Mrs Alm. Mrs Turnbull by a Cross-claim claimed…

Continue reading Turnbull v Alm

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Turnbull v Alm [2004] NSWCA 173
Case
[2004] NSWCA 173
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute in *Turnbull v Alm* concerned an action for negligence brought by the plaintiff, Alm, against the occupier of a shopping centre, Turnbull, and the City Council. Alm suffered injury when she tripped and fell in a hole on a concrete footpath located on private land at the periphery of the shopping area. Turnbull, as the landlord, leased out the shops but retained control over the common areas, including the footpath where the accident occurred. The matter was heard on appeal in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether Turnbull, as the occupier, owed a duty of care to Alm, and if so, whether that duty had been breached. The court also considered whether the trial judge had erred in applying the correct legal test for occupier's liability and whether Turnbull's failure to repair the footpath constituted negligence. Furthermore, the court had to determine the extent of any liability on the part of the City Council, which had undertaken repairs to the footpath on several occasions, and how liability should be apportioned between Turnbull and the City Council.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had incorrectly applied a test that required the occupier to ensure the safety of the common areas. Instead, the court applied the established principles of occupier's liability, which require an occupier to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm to persons entering their premises. The court considered the factual findings of the trial judge, including the size and nature of the defect in the footpath and Turnbull's knowledge of it, as well as the City Council's inadequate repair attempts. Ultimately, the court found that both Turnbull and the City Council were negligent and apportioned liability equally between them.

The appeal by Turnbull against the finding of liability was dismissed. The cross-appeals by Alm were allowed, resulting in an award of 50% contribution against the City Council.

Orders

Orders of the court

Dismiss appeal by Occupier against Entrant: allow cross-appeals so as to award 50% contribution against City Council; See para [79]

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.