Veevers v Coleman [2013] NSWDC 210

Veevers v Coleman [2013] NSWDC 210

The plaintiff failed to prove that the driveway was damp or that he fell in the manner and circumstances alleged. The Court preferred the defendants' evidence about the driveway surface and its history of use, accepted that they had no notice of prior slipping incidents or of the plaintiff's use of the driveway, and was not satisfied that the relevant risk was foreseeable under the Civil Liability Act 2002. In any event, the risk of using the obviously steep driveway would have been obvious to the plaintiff. The claim against the third and fourth defendants therefore failed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Personal Injury Negligence Claim / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Judgment for the third and fourth defendants.
Legal Topics
['slip and Fall on Adjoining Property Driveway' 'foreseeability of Risk' 'obvious Risk' 'contributory Negligence' 'damages Assessment']
['personal Injury' 'negligence' 'civil Liability'] ['slip and Fall on Adjoining Property Driveway' 'foreseeability of Risk' 'obvious Risk' 'contributory Negligence' 'damages Assessment']

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

Civil Personal Injury Negligence Claim / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff proved that he fell in the manner and circumstances alleged, including that the driveway was damp.' 'Whether the third and fourth defendants were negligent under the Civil Liability Act 2002.' 'Whether any risk of harm from pedestrian use of the steep driveway was foreseeable and not insignificant.' 'Whether the risk was obvious and whether the defendants had an obligation to warn.' 'Whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent if liability had been established.' 'What damages would have been awarded if liability had been established.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to prove that the driveway was damp or that he fell in the manner and circumstances alleged. The Court preferred the defendants' evidence about the driveway surface and its history of use, accepted that they had no notice of prior slipping incidents or of the plaintiff's use of the driveway, and was not satisfied that the relevant risk was foreseeable under the Civil Liability Act 2002. In any event, the risk of using the obviously steep driveway would have been obvious to the plaintiff. The claim against the third and fourth defendants therefore failed.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the third and fourth defendants.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the third and fourth defendants' "The plaintiff is to pay the third and fourth defendants' costs of the proceedings"]