Geoffrey Barker v A J Zanco Pty Limited t/as Krack Solutions [2023] NSWDC 43

Geoffrey Barker v A J Zanco Pty Limited t/as Krack Solutions [2023] NSWDC 43

The slab was more likely than not unstable and protruded sufficiently to create a real trip hazard which caused the Plaintiff to trip and fall. The Defendant breached its duty by negligently carrying out the temporary reinstatement, failing to inspect the slab adequately or at all for stability, and failing to...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Personal Injury Negligence Claim / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Judgment for the Plaintiff against the Defendant in the sum of $39,015.75, with the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff's costs.
Legal Topics
['trip Hazard' 'footpath Protrusion' 'saw Cut Concrete Reinstatement' 'duty of Care' 'breach of Duty' 'causation' 'contributory Negligence' 'non Economic Loss' 'past Medical Expenses']
['negligence' 'personal Injury' 'civil Liability' 'damages'] ['trip Hazard' 'footpath Protrusion' 'saw Cut Concrete Reinstatement' 'duty of Care' 'breach of Duty' 'causation' 'contributory Negligence' 'non Economic Loss' 'past Medical Expenses']

Source-derived case record

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 tripped over a raised edge of the reinstated concrete slab.' 'Whether the Defendant breached its admitted duty of care by failing to reinstate, inspect, or notify Council about the temporary footpath works.' "Whether any breach caused the Plaintiff's fall and injuries within the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)." 'Whether the Plaintiff was contributorily negligent.' 'What damages should be awarded for non-economic loss, past out-of-pocket expenses, interest and any future medical expenses.']

Ratio Decidendi

The slab was more likely than not unstable and protruded sufficiently to create a real trip hazard which caused the Plaintiff to trip and fall. The Defendant breached its duty by negligently carrying out the temporary reinstatement, failing to inspect the slab adequately or at all for stability, and failing to notify Bayside Council so that an inspection would occur. Proper reinstatement, inspection, or Council notification would more likely than not have avoided the injury. The Plaintiff was contributorily negligent by failing to pay sufficient attention to the pavement, warranting a 10% reduction. Future medical expenses were not proved.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Plaintiff against the Defendant in the sum of $39,015.75, with the Defendant to pay the Plaintiff's costs.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the Plaintiff against the Defendant in the sum of $39,015.75.' "Defendant to pay the Plaintiff's costs."]