Blakemore v Moore & Clements [2015] NSWDC 9

Blakemore v Moore & Clements [2015] NSWDC 9

Although the plaintiff proved on the balance of probabilities that she stepped on crushed tile material which caused her ankle to roll and led to her fall, the defendants owed no relevant duty of care because the material on the concrete car park was obvious, known to the plaintiff, and she failed to take reasonable care for her own safety. If a duty existed, it was not breached: the risk was foreseeable and not insignificant, but a reasonable person in the defendants' position would not have demolished the garden beds, extended the concrete, or installed a barrier, particularly where the car park had been designed and built by consulting engineers, there had been no prior complaint, and...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Tort Personal Injury Claim for Damages Arising From Slip and Fall / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Verdict for the Defendants
Legal Topics
['slip and Fall in Car Park' 'duty of Care by Landlord/occupier' 'breach of Duty Under Civil Liability Act 2002 S 5 B' 'obvious Risk and Duty to Warn' 'causation' 'contributory Negligence' "employer's Non Delegable Duty of Care" 'assessment of Damages']
['tort' 'negligence' 'occupiers Liability' 'personal Injury' 'civil Liability' 'workers Compensation Contribution/apportionment'] ['slip and Fall in Car Park' 'duty of Care by Landlord/occupier' 'breach of Duty Under Civil Liability Act 2002 S 5 B' 'obvious Risk and Duty to Warn' 'causation' 'contributory Negligence' "employer's Non Delegable Duty of Care" 'assessment of Damages']

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

Civil Tort Personal Injury Claim for Damages Arising From Slip and Fall / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Did the defendants owe the plaintiff any relevant duty of care?' 'If so, did the defendants breach that duty of care?' "If the defendants did breach their duty of care, was that breach causative of the plaintiff's injuries?" "Were the plaintiff's injuries occasioned by her own contributory negligence by her failure to keep proper look out for her own safety?" "Was the plaintiff's employer in breach of its non-delegable duty of care to provide her with a safe place of work?" "How should the plaintiff's damages be assessed?" 'How should any damages be apportioned, if at all?']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the plaintiff proved on the balance of probabilities that she stepped on crushed tile material which caused her ankle to roll and led to her fall, the defendants owed no relevant duty of care because the material on the concrete car park was obvious, known to the plaintiff, and she failed to take reasonable care for her own safety. If a duty existed, it was not breached: the risk was foreseeable and not insignificant, but a reasonable person in the defendants' position would not have demolished the garden beds, extended the concrete, or installed a barrier, particularly where the car park had been designed and built by consulting engineers, there had been no prior complaint, and...

Court Disposition

Verdict for the Defendants

Orders

  • ['Verdict for the Defendants.' "The Plaintiff to pay the Defendants' costs." 'Liberty to apply on seven days notice for any special costs order.' 'Exhibits to be returned forthwith.']