Dale Erwin-Jones v Latitude Underwriting Pty Ltd [2016] NSWDC 46

Dale Erwin-Jones v Latitude Underwriting Pty Ltd [2016] NSWDC 46

The defendant breached its admitted duty of care because, on a wet and windy night, sufficient water had accumulated on the dark polished timber floor near the restaurant entrance and umbrella area to cause the plaintiff to slip and to soak through her clothing, and a reasonable occupier would have taken inexpensive precautions such as absorbent matting, regular mopping and warning signs. Applying probabilistic reasoning and drawing an adverse inference from the defendant's failure to call available staff witnesses, the court found that the accumulation ought to have been identified and remedied and that but for the breach the plaintiff would not have been injured. The plaintiff was not...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Personal Injuries Negligence Claim / Principal Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $344,029.00.
Legal Topics
['slip and Fall in Restaurant' "occupiers' Liability" 'breach of Duty' 'causation' 'contributory Negligence' 'obvious Risk' 'jones V Dunkel Inference' 'assessment of Damages' 'future Economic Loss' 'future Domestic Assistance']
['torts' 'personal Injury' 'negligence' 'civil Procedure' 'evidence' 'damages'] ['slip and Fall in Restaurant' "occupiers' Liability" 'breach of Duty' 'causation' 'contributory Negligence' 'obvious Risk' 'jones V Dunkel Inference' 'assessment of Damages' 'future Economic Loss' 'future Domestic Assistance']

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 Injuries Negligence Claim / Principal Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendant breached its duty of care to the plaintiff.' "Whether any breach caused the plaintiff's injuries." 'The injuries and extent of injuries suffered by the plaintiff.' 'Assessment of damages, except for agreed non-economic loss and past treatment expenses.' 'Whether the plaintiff was intoxicated or contributorily negligent.' "Whether a Jones v Dunkel inference should be drawn from the defendant's failure to call restaurant employees."]

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant breached its admitted duty of care because, on a wet and windy night, sufficient water had accumulated on the dark polished timber floor near the restaurant entrance and umbrella area to cause the plaintiff to slip and to soak through her clothing, and a reasonable occupier would have taken inexpensive precautions such as absorbent matting, regular mopping and warning signs. Applying probabilistic reasoning and drawing an adverse inference from the defendant's failure to call available staff witnesses, the court found that the accumulation ought to have been identified and remedied and that but for the breach the plaintiff would not have been injured. The plaintiff was not...

Court Disposition

Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $344,029.00.

Orders

  • ['Verdict and judgment in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $344,029.00.' "The defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings." 'The exhibits are to be returned forthwith.' "The parties have liberty to apply on 7 days' notice, by way of Notice of Motion, for any special costs...