Folkes v Calabaro & Ors [2004] NSWCA 191

Folkes v Calabaro & Ors [2004] NSWCA 191

The trial judge's findings that the boarding was chamfered, adequately illuminated and readily visible to a pedestrian keeping a proper lookout were open on the evidence, particularly the accepted evidence of Mr Calabro. The reasons were sufficient, and the judge did not err in assessing the defendants' duty and breach on the basis of pedestrians exercising reasonable care for their own safety. The appellant therefore failed to establish negligence or appealable error.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 June 2004
Procedural Posture
Negligence Claim for Personal Injury Arising From a Pedestrian Tripping on Boarding on a Footpath / Appeal From District Court Verdicts and Judgments for the Defendants
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['pedestrian Injury' 'footpath Hazard' 'duty of Care' 'breach of Duty' 'appellate Review of Factual Findings' 'adequacy of Reasons']
['negligence' 'tort Law'] ['pedestrian Injury' 'footpath Hazard' 'duty of Care' 'breach of Duty' 'appellate Review of Factual Findings' 'adequacy of Reasons']

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 Claim for Personal Injury Arising From a Pedestrian Tripping on Boarding on a Footpath / Appeal From District Court Verdicts and Judgments for the Defendants

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the trial judge failed to take into consideration matters relevant to the plaintiff's case concerning chamfering, weathering and illumination of the boarding." "Whether the trial judge failed to give sufficient reasons for accepting the evidence of Mr Calabro and rejecting the plaintiff's case." 'Whether the trial judge erred in assessing duty and breach by reference to a pedestrian exercising reasonable care for her own safety.']

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's findings that the boarding was chamfered, adequately illuminated and readily visible to a pedestrian keeping a proper lookout were open on the evidence, particularly the accepted evidence of Mr Calabro. The reasons were sufficient, and the judge did not err in assessing the defendants' duty and breach on the basis of pedestrians exercising reasonable care for their own safety. The appellant therefore failed to establish negligence or appealable error.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed with costs.']