GRAHAM v DINSDALE and ANOR [1998] NSWCA 97

GRAHAM v DINSDALE and ANOR [1998] NSWCA 97

The respondent had not breached the duty of care; reasonable care was taken as the steps were adequately illuminated by a working streetlight and the sensor light could not affect illumination at the steps due to physical limitations.

Parties
Appellant: Graham; Respondent: Dinsdale
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 November 1998
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Occupiers' Liability, Duty of Care, Illumination and Safety Precautions
Torts Occupiers' Liability Duty of Care Illumination and Safety Precautions

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Graham

Appellant

Dinsdale

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the occupier breached the duty of care to a visitor by failing to adequately illuminate a path and steps
  2. 2 Whether inadequate lighting or turning off a sensor light constituted negligence

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent had not breached the duty of care; reasonable care was taken as the steps were adequately illuminated by a working streetlight and the sensor light could not affect illumination at the steps due to physical limitations.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs