Michael Wilkinson (Appellant) Law Courts Limited (Respondent)
JUDGMENT OF:
Meagher JA at 1, 37; Heydon JA at 2; Rolfe AJA at 38
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION :
District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) :
DC 3820/98
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER :
Hogan ADCJ
COUNSEL:
C P Locke (Appellant) J E Maconachie QC/S M Kettle (Respondent)
SOLICITORS:
Velleley & Associates (Appellant) I V Knight (Respondent)
CATCHWORDS:
Torts - Negligence - Liability - Whether breach of duty of care - Whether occupier of public building breached duty of care to person who fell down external steps - Whether dimension of steps relevant - Where no hand-rails, edge-delineation strips, nor warning signs present - ND
Appeal dismissed; appellant to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.
THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COURT OF APPEAL
MEAGHER JA HEYDON JA ROLFE AJA
25 June 2001
Michael WILKINSON v LAW COURTS LIMITED
Torts - Negligence - Liability - Whether breach of duty of care - Whether occupier of public building breached duty of care to person who fell down external steps - Whether dimension of steps relevant - Where no hand-rails, edge-delineation strips, nor warning signs present
On 30 May 1995 the appellant (plaintiff at first instance) fell down the steps outside the Law Courts building at Sydney. The appellant suffered a broken ankle. At the time of the accident, the appellant was thirty-four years of age and was an able-bodied person with full sight. At that time there was no hand-rail, edge-delineation strips nor warning signs present on or near the steps. The appellant sued the occupiers of the building (the defendant at first instance and the respondent on appeal) for damages, but was unsuccessful at trial.
Held by Heydon JA (Meagher JA and Rolfe AJA concurring), dismissing the appeal:
1. Departure from Australian Standard AS 1657, which did not apply to the Law Courts building, was irrelevant to the question of liability.
There was no error in the trial Judge’s conclusions about the lack of
negligence resulting from varying rise heights of the steps; nor did the trial Judge err by failing to mention or consider variation in the rise heights.
3.
The trial judge did not err in concentrating on the appellant’s fitness and athleticism. Any danger the steps might have posed to less able persons is irrelevant to whether there was a breach of a duty of care owed to the appellant.
The failure to install a hand-rail, edge-delineation strips and a warning
sign at or near the place of the accident was not a breach of duty.
a. An occupier of premises is “only required to…
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 Wilkinson v Law Courts Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Wilkinson v Law Courts Ltd [2001] NSWCA 196
Case
[2001] NSWCA 196
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellant, Wilkinson, brought proceedings against the respondent, Law Courts Ltd, alleging negligence. The dispute concerned injuries sustained by the appellant when she fell down external steps leading to the respondent's building. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.
The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the respondent, as the occupier of the public building, had breached its duty of care to the appellant. This involved considering whether the dimensions of the steps, the absence of hand-rails, edge-delineation strips, and warning signs constituted a breach of that duty.
The Court of Appeal found that the respondent had not breached its duty of care. The judges reasoned that the steps, while lacking certain safety features, were not inherently dangerous. The dimensions of the steps were found to be standard, and the absence of hand-rails, edge-delineation, and warning signs did not, in the circumstances, render the steps unsafe. The court applied principles of negligence, focusing on the standard of care expected of an occupier towards lawful visitors, and concluded that the respondent had met that standard.
The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed; appellant to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.