LEWKOVITZ v RICH [1993] NSWCA 161

LEWKOVITZ v RICH [1993] NSWCA 161

On the trial judge's findings, the medical practitioner failed to give a sufficient positive warning relating to exposure to excessive noise, which constituted negligence and justified the award of damages; there was no reason for the appellate court to interfere with these findings.

Parties
Appellant: Lewkovitz; Respondent: Rich
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 June 1993
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Decision of Sharpe J
Outcome
Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Medical Practitioner Duty of Care, Adequate Warning to Patient, Costs Orders, Recovery Below Threshold
Negligence Costs Medical Practitioner Duty of Care Adequate Warning to Patient Costs Orders Recovery Below Threshold

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lewkovitz

Appellant

Rich

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Decision of Sharpe J

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant failed to fulfil the duty of care to warn the respondent to avoid excessive noise
  2. 2 Whether any warning given was adequate
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's condition was caused or accelerated by breach of duty

Ratio Decidendi

On the trial judge's findings, the medical practitioner failed to give a sufficient positive warning relating to exposure to excessive noise, which constituted negligence and justified the award of damages; there was no reason for the appellate court to interfere with these findings.

Court Disposition

Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed.
  • Appellant to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.