Jackson v Furner [2024] NSWCA 66

Jackson v Furner [2024] NSWCA 66

The appeal failed because the primary judge was entitled to reject the second appellant's evidence as contradictory and unreliable, including because she disavowed or withdrew the assertion that anti-slip paint was used and denied recalling that the driveway had been painted at all. The evidence of the respondent, her husband, the observed slip by Ms Johnson, the uncross-examined expert report of Mr Cauduro, and contemporaneous text messages supported the findings that the recently painted sloping driveway was very slippery when wet, that non-slip paint had not been used, and that each appellant as an occupier ought to have known of the foreseeable and not insignificant risk of a person...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 March 2024
Procedural Posture
Negligence Personal Injuries Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales, Common Law Division, Decision of Harrison as J Dated 3 August 2023, Citation [2023] NSWSC 914
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['slip and Fall During Open for Inspection' 'foreseeable Risk of Harm' 'breach of Duty of Care' 'non Slip Paint' 'credibility and Reliability of Witness Evidence' 'appellate Review of Factual Findings']
['negligence' 'personal Injuries' "occupiers' Liability"] ['slip and Fall During Open for Inspection' 'foreseeable Risk of Harm' 'breach of Duty of Care' 'non Slip Paint' 'credibility and Reliability of Witness Evidence' 'appellate Review of Factual Findings']

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

Negligence Personal Injuries Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales, Common Law Division, Decision of Harrison as J Dated 3 August 2023, Citation [2023] NSWSC 914

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the primary judge erred in rejecting the second appellant's evidence as contradictory and unreliable." 'Whether the primary judge erred in failing to find that the driveway was painted with non-slip charcoal paint recommended by appropriate experts.' 'Whether the appellants had done all that was necessary to discharge their duty of care to the respondent.' "Whether the third appellant's agent was aware of a problem with the driveway before the respondent's fall." 'Whether the appellants knew or ought to have known that the driveway was slippery and that the risk of falling was foreseeable.' 'Whether the availability of stairs to the property was relevant to any ground of appeal.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because the primary judge was entitled to reject the second appellant's evidence as contradictory and unreliable, including because she disavowed or withdrew the assertion that anti-slip paint was used and denied recalling that the driveway had been painted at all. The evidence of the respondent, her husband, the observed slip by Ms Johnson, the uncross-examined expert report of Mr Cauduro, and contemporaneous text messages supported the findings that the recently painted sloping driveway was very slippery when wet, that non-slip paint had not been used, and that each appellant as an occupier ought to have known of the foreseeable and not insignificant risk of a person...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed.' "The appellants pay the respondent's costs."]