Haralambopoulos v Longin [2011] NSWSC 852

Haralambopoulos v Longin [2011] NSWSC 852

The defendants breached their duty of care because they knew the exposed stairwell void presented a serious risk, the burden of warning the plaintiff or ensuring the void was covered or barricaded was minimal, and a reasonable person in their position would have taken those precautions. The risk was not shown to be obvious to a reasonable person in the plaintiff's position, given he was a stranger being escorted and distracted by the second defendant, and the plaintiff was not contributorily negligent. The defendants' failure to warn or provide a protective barrier was the sole cause of the plaintiff's harm.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Common Law Personal Injury Negligence Claim / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff in a sum to be calculated. The defendants are to pay the plaintiff's costs as agreed or assessed.
Legal Topics
['dangerous Premises' "occupiers' Liability" 'invitees' 'obvious Risk' 'contributory Negligence' 'loss of Earnings and Earning Capacity' 'domestic Assistance' 'future Medical Treatment' 'superannuation Loss']
['torts' 'negligence' 'personal Injury Damages'] ['dangerous Premises' "occupiers' Liability" 'invitees' 'obvious Risk' 'contributory Negligence' 'loss of Earnings and Earning Capacity' 'domestic Assistance' 'future Medical Treatment' 'superannuation Loss']

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

Common Law Personal Injury Negligence Claim / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendants were negligent by failing to warn the plaintiff of the exposed stairwell void and/or failing to put a barrier or barricade around it.' 'Whether the risk of falling through the stairwell void was an obvious risk under Part 1A Div 4 of the Civil Liability Act 2002 and whether s 5H relieved the defendants of a duty to warn.' 'Whether the plaintiff failed to take reasonable care for his own safety or was contributorily negligent.' 'How damages should be assessed for non-economic loss, out of pocket expenses, future treatment, domestic assistance, income loss, loss of earning capacity and superannuation loss.']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants breached their duty of care because they knew the exposed stairwell void presented a serious risk, the burden of warning the plaintiff or ensuring the void was covered or barricaded was minimal, and a reasonable person in their position would have taken those precautions. The risk was not shown to be obvious to a reasonable person in the plaintiff's position, given he was a stranger being escorted and distracted by the second defendant, and the plaintiff was not contributorily negligent. The defendants' failure to warn or provide a protective barrier was the sole cause of the plaintiff's harm.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff in a sum to be calculated. The defendants are to pay the plaintiff's costs as agreed or assessed.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the plaintiff in a sum to be calculated.' "The defendants are to pay the plaintiff's costs as agreed or assessed. Liberty to apply within 14 days if any alternative order is sought." 'The parties are to confer with a view to agreeing calculations as to damages in accordance with these reasons for...