Hampton Court Ltd v Crooks [1957] HCA 28

Hampton Court Ltd v Crooks [1957] HCA 28

Although the jury could find that a greasy or oily substance on the floor caused the respondent to slip and that its presence was an unusual danger, there was no evidence that the appellant actually knew of it or that reasonable care required the appellant to know of it. The substance and its origin were unidentified, there was no evidence that ordinary use of the room was likely to create such a danger, and reasonable care did not require a constant guard against unforeseeable chance events. The appellant was not barred from raising the insufficiency of evidence on appeal, and the Full Court had power to set aside the verdict and enter judgment for the appellant.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal and Cross Appeal in a Negligence Action for Personal Injuries on Licensed Premises / High Court Appeal From an Order of the Supreme Court of New South Wales Full Court Ordering a New Trial Limited to Damages
Outcome
Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed; order of the Supreme Court of New South Wales discharged; verdict for the respondent set aside; verdict and judgment entered for the appellant defendant.
Legal Topics
['invitee Injured by Slipping on Hotel Floor' 'unusual Danger' 'actual or Constructive Knowledge of Danger' 'sufficiency of Evidence of Negligence' 'power of Appellate Court to Enter Verdict for Defendant' 'failure to Take Point at Trial']

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

Appeal and Cross Appeal in a Negligence Action for Personal Injuries on Licensed Premises / High Court Appeal From an Order of the Supreme Court of New South Wales Full Court Ordering a New Trial Limited to Damages

  1. 1 ["Whether there was evidence on which the jury could find that the appellant knew or ought to have known of the greasy or oily substance on the floor of the ladies' retiring room." 'Whether the respondent established negligence where the substance causing the fall was unidentified and its origin was unknown.' 'Whether the appellant was precluded from seeking judgment on appeal because it had not asked at trial for a directed verdict or non-suit.' 'Whether the Full Court had power to set aside the jury verdict and enter judgment for the appellant.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the jury could find that a greasy or oily substance on the floor caused the respondent to slip and that its presence was an unusual danger, there was no evidence that the appellant actually knew of it or that reasonable care required the appellant to know of it. The substance and its origin were unidentified, there was no evidence that ordinary use of the room was likely to create such a danger, and reasonable care did not require a constant guard against unforeseeable chance events. The appellant was not barred from raising the insufficiency of evidence on appeal, and the Full Court had power to set aside the verdict and enter judgment for the appellant.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed; order of the Supreme Court of New South Wales discharged; verdict for the respondent set aside; verdict and judgment entered for the appellant defendant.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed.' 'Cross-appeal dismissed.' 'Order of the Supreme Court of New South Wales discharged.' 'In lieu thereof set aside the verdict of the jury and enter a verdict and judgment for the defendant the appellant in this Court.' 'The parties to abide their costs in this Court and of all proceedings in the...