Cafest v Tombleson [2003] NSWCA 210

Cafest v Tombleson [2003] NSWCA 210

The appellant did not lack reasonable care: it warned patrons by notices that risks were involved, made protective gear available on request, provided a beginner's rink, and employed trained staff to assist skaters. Its failure to eliminate the risk of a wrist injury to the respondent was not demonstrative of a want of reasonable care, so the respondent's case in tort or contract should have failed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 August 2003
Procedural Posture
Negligence Personal Injury Appeal / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Appeal From a District Court Verdict and Judgment for the Plaintiff
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment and verdict below set aside; verdict entered for the defendant appellant.
Legal Topics
['reasonable Care' 'recreational Skating Injury' 'risk Warnings' 'protective Equipment' 'breach of Duty']
['tort Law' 'negligence' 'personal Injury'] ['reasonable Care' 'recreational Skating Injury' 'risk Warnings' 'protective Equipment' 'breach of Duty']

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 Appeal / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Appeal From a District Court Verdict and Judgment for the Plaintiff

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the appellant's failure to do more to warn the respondent about wrist injury risks or provide wrist guards demonstrated a want of reasonable care." "Whether the respondent's claim, whether in tort or contract, should have succeeded after she fell and broke her wrist while roller-skating."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant did not lack reasonable care: it warned patrons by notices that risks were involved, made protective gear available on request, provided a beginner's rink, and employed trained staff to assist skaters. Its failure to eliminate the risk of a wrist injury to the respondent was not demonstrative of a want of reasonable care, so the respondent's case in tort or contract should have failed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment and verdict below set aside; verdict entered for the defendant appellant.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed.' 'Judgment and verdict below set aside.' 'In lieu thereof, verdict for the defendant (appellant).' "Order the respondent to pay the appellant's costs of trial and of the appeal, but to have a certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951."]