RESPONDENT DEFENDANT, Negligence-Dangerous premises-Liability of occupier to person entering pursuant H. C. OF
to contract-Boarding house-Defective gas bath-heater-Death of paying guest.
A defective gas bath-heater installed in a bathroom at a boarding house caused the death, by carbon-monoxide gas poisoning, of a paying guest at the boarding house. His widow brought an action against the proprietress of the boarding house, claiming damages and solatium. After the accident, it was discovered that the outer water jacket of the heater had bulged and that the flue had become partly blocked by a collection of rust. The combin- ation of these defects caused carbon-monoxide gas to escape into the bathroom. The condition of the heater would have been apparent to an expert but not to the ordinary person. The heater had been in use for more than twenty years and, although it was of an out-of-date type, it was safe when in good repair, and a large number of heaters of the type were still in use. The trial judge stated the duty owed by the boarding house proprietress to the paying guest by saying that the former impliedly warrants that reasonable care has been taken to make and keep the premises reasonably fit and safe for the purposes for which they are to be used. Applying this principle, he said that, in accepting the deceased as a paying guest and in inviting him to use the bathroom, the boarding house proprietress impliedly warranted that reason- able care had been taken to maintain the bath-heater in a reasonably fit and safe condition. He held that the boarding house proprietress had not failed in this duty, despite the fact that she had not had the heater examined at regular intervals. He accordingly dismissed the action.
Held, that the trial judge had stated the relevant principle correctly and had correctly applied it to the facts.
Decision of the Supreme Court of South Australia (Ligertwood J.) Watson V. George (1953) S.A.S.R. 219, affirmed.
OF APPEAL from the Supreme Court of South Australia.
Faith Dorothea Watson brought an action in the Supreme Court of South Australia under Pt. II of the Wrongs Act 1936-1944 (S.A.) for damages and solatium in respect of the death of her husband, John Joseph Alexander Watson, on 15th or 16th July 1951.
The plaintiff and the deceased were lodging in a boarding house owned and conducted by the defendant, Daisy Burnice George, at South Terrace, Adelaide. The accommodation provided for them included the use, in common with other lodgers, of a bathroom. On the morning of 16th July 1951, the deceased was found dead in the bathroom, in which the bath-heater was alight. His death had been caused by carbon-monoxide gas from the heater. An expert who subsequently examined the heater found that the flame of the burner was smothering, which indicated that the products of combustion were being forced down over the flame. On dis- mantling the heater, he found that the outer water jacket…
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 Watson v George
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Watson v George [1953] HCA 41
Case
[1953] HCA 41
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The plaintiff, Faith Dorothea Watson, brought an action in the Supreme Court of South Australia against the defendant, Daisy Burnice George, seeking damages and solatium for the death of her husband, John Joseph Alexander Watson. The deceased, a paying guest at the defendant's boarding house, died in the bathroom due to carbon-monoxide poisoning from a defective gas bath-heater. The High Court of Australia heard an appeal from the Supreme Court of South Australia's decision.
The central legal issues before the court were whether the defendant, as the proprietor of a boarding house, owed a duty of care to her paying guests regarding the safety of the premises, and specifically the bath-heater, and if so, whether she had breached that duty. The court was required to determine the nature and extent of the implied warranty owed by a boarding house proprietor to a paying guest concerning the condition of the premises and its fixtures, and whether the defects in the bath-heater, which led to the fatal accident, were discoverable through reasonable care and inspection.
The High Court affirmed the decision of the trial judge, holding that the proprietor of a boarding house impliedly warrants that reasonable care has been taken to maintain the premises, including fixtures like the bath-heater, in a reasonably fit and safe condition for the purposes for which they are used by paying guests. The court found that while the deceased was exposed to an unusual danger, the defendant had not breached her duty. The defects in the heater, a bulged water jacket and a blocked flue due to rust, were not apparent to the ordinary user and, crucially, there was no evidence that the defendant knew or ought to have known of these specific defects, nor was there a common practice or recommendation for periodic expert inspections of such appliances. The court concluded that the defendant had taken reasonable care in the circumstances and was not liable for the unforeseen combination of defects that caused the accident.