Taber v NSW Land and Housing Corporation [2001] NSWCA 182

Taber v NSW Land and Housing Corporation [2001] NSWCA 182

The respondent did not breach its duty of care by failing to install a handrail because the short flight of steps and the risk were obvious, no code required a handrail, the appellant had used the steps for weeks, and the fall resulted from her overstepping or failing to place her foot on the bottom step. In any event, even if breach were established, the absence of a handrail was not shown to have caused the injury because the appellant would still have lost balance and hit the ground after missing the step.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 June 2001
Procedural Posture
Negligence Personal Injury Leased Premises / Appeal From District Court Verdict for the Respondent
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['duty of Care' 'breach of Duty' 'causation' 'personal Injury on Leased Premises' 'handrail on Stairs' 'admissibility of Lay Opinion Evidence']
['torts' 'negligence' 'landlord and Tenant' 'evidence'] ['duty of Care' 'breach of Duty' 'causation' 'personal Injury on Leased Premises' 'handrail on Stairs' 'admissibility of Lay Opinion Evidence']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Negligence Personal Injury Leased Premises / Appeal From District Court Verdict for the Respondent

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondent breached its duty of care to the appellant by failing to install a handrail on external steps at leased premises.' "Whether uneven stair tread depth or absence of a handrail caused the appellant's fall and injury." 'Whether the respondent could raise a notice of contention that any duty was discharged by hiring a competent independent contractor.' 'Whether cross-examination evidence about whether the appellant would have fallen if the step had been the correct depth was admissible.']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent did not breach its duty of care by failing to install a handrail because the short flight of steps and the risk were obvious, no code required a handrail, the appellant had used the steps for weeks, and the fall resulted from her overstepping or failing to place her foot on the bottom step. In any event, even if breach were established, the absence of a handrail was not shown to have caused the injury because the appellant would still have lost balance and hit the ground after missing the step.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed with costs.']