JONES v DAPTO LEAGUES CLUB LIMITED [2008] NSWCA 32

JONES v DAPTO LEAGUES CLUB LIMITED [2008] NSWCA 32

The finding of contributory negligence could not stand because the trial judge's findings were internally contradictory and inconsistent with findings that the claimant knew the power had been disconnected and was unaware that someone had reconnected it; there was no finding that he deliberately put his hand into a live socket knowing it was live. The cross-appeal on self-infliction, causation and intoxication failed because the Club's negligence remained causative and the judge's conclusion that intoxication did not impair reasonable care and skill was open on the evidence. The damages assessment could not stand because the trial judge rejected unchallenged treating and expert medical...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 March 2008
Procedural Posture
Appeal From District Court Personal Injury Negligence Proceedings / Application for Leave to Appeal and Application for Leave to Cross Appeal Heard as on an Appeal
Outcome
Appeal upheld; opponent's application for leave to cross-appeal dismissed with costs; judgment entered for the claimant in the sum of $30,652.
Legal Topics
['dangerous Premises' 'electrocution of Patron' 'causation' 'contributory Negligence' 'intoxication' 'non Economic Loss' 'post Traumatic Stress Disorder' 'expert Medical Evidence']
['negligence' "occupier's Liability" 'evidence' 'damages' 'civil Procedure'] ['dangerous Premises' 'electrocution of Patron' 'causation' 'contributory Negligence' 'intoxication' 'non Economic Loss' 'post Traumatic Stress Disorder' 'expert Medical Evidence']

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

Appeal From District Court Personal Injury Negligence Proceedings / Application for Leave to Appeal and Application for Leave to Cross Appeal Heard as on an Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge erred in reducing damages for contributory negligence by 65%.' "Whether the Club's negligence caused the claimant's injuries or the injuries were self-inflicted by a deliberate act." 'Whether s50 of the Civil Liability Act 2002 applied because the claimant was intoxicated to the extent that his capacity to exercise reasonable care and skill was impaired.' "Whether the trial judge erred in rejecting the claimant's medical evidence that the accident caused ongoing PTSD and brain injury symptoms." 'What damages should be awarded for past out of pocket expenses, future out of pocket expenses and non-economic loss.']

Ratio Decidendi

The finding of contributory negligence could not stand because the trial judge's findings were internally contradictory and inconsistent with findings that the claimant knew the power had been disconnected and was unaware that someone had reconnected it; there was no finding that he deliberately put his hand into a live socket knowing it was live. The cross-appeal on self-infliction, causation and intoxication failed because the Club's negligence remained causative and the judge's conclusion that intoxication did not impair reasonable care and skill was open on the evidence. The damages assessment could not stand because the trial judge rejected unchallenged treating and expert medical...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; opponent's application for leave to cross-appeal dismissed with costs; judgment entered for the claimant in the sum of $30,652.

Orders

  • ["Opponent's application for leave to cross-appeal dismissed with costs." 'Grant leave to the claimant to appeal subject to the filing of a notice of appeal within 7 days.' 'Appeal upheld.' 'In place of the verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $700 enter a verdict and judgment in the sum of $30,652, to take...