Gillies v Saddington [2004] NSWCA 110

Gillies v Saddington [2004] NSWCA 110

The appeal failed because the trial judge was entitled to find that the risk of slipperiness on a steep exposed aggregate driveway when wet was obvious, that there had been considerable use and few slipping incidents over many years, that the respondent was unaware of prior slipping incidents, and that persons could use grassed areas instead of the driveway. In those circumstances the respondent was not required, in the exercise of reasonable care, to install steps or a handrail or apply a surface coating before the appellant's fall.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 March 2004
Procedural Posture
Negligence Appeal Arising From a Slipping Injury Claim / Appeal From the District Court; Appeal Dismissed
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
["occupiers' Liability" 'slip and Fall' 'foreseeable Risk of Injury' 'obvious Risk' 'reasonable Care']
['tort Law' 'negligence'] ["occupiers' Liability" 'slip and Fall' 'foreseeable Risk of Injury' 'obvious Risk' 'reasonable Care']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Negligence Appeal Arising From a Slipping Injury Claim / Appeal From the District Court; Appeal Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondent failed to take reasonable care to avoid a foreseeable risk of injury to the appellant from a steep wet driveway.' "Whether the driveway's slipperiness when wet required the respondent to provide steps, a handrail, or surface treatment." "Whether the trial judge erred in balancing the obviousness of the risk, prior slipping incidents, and the respondent's knowledge."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because the trial judge was entitled to find that the risk of slipperiness on a steep exposed aggregate driveway when wet was obvious, that there had been considerable use and few slipping incidents over many years, that the respondent was unaware of prior slipping incidents, and that persons could use grassed areas instead of the driveway. In those circumstances the respondent was not required, in the exercise of reasonable care, to install steps or a handrail or apply a surface coating before the appellant's fall.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed with costs.']