Corliss v Adams [1999] NSWSC 948

Corliss v Adams [1999] NSWSC 948

The defendant knew of the grass-covered depression in the area behind the hotel and it was foreseeable that a pedestrian could be injured by stepping into it. The defendant did not discharge his duty of reasonable care merely by leaving the grass longer over the depression, because there was no warning notice, fencing or other deterrent. The defendant failed to prove contributory negligence. Hospital records and surrounding circumstances established on the balance of probabilities that the accident occurred on 6 December 1992, so the limitation defence failed. The plaintiff proved injury and loss warranting damages assessed at $80,520.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 September 1999
Procedural Posture
Negligence Claim for Damages for Personal Injury Against Occupier of Premises / Trial Judgment in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Common Law Division
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $80,520; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['negligence' "occupier's Liability" 'contributory Negligence' 'statute Barred Claim' 'assessment of Damages' 'loss of Earning Capacity']
['torts' 'personal Injury' 'limitation of Actions'] ['negligence' "occupier's Liability" 'contributory Negligence' 'statute Barred Claim' 'assessment of Damages' 'loss of Earning Capacity']

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 Claim for Damages for Personal Injury Against Occupier of Premises / Trial Judgment in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Common Law Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendant as occupier of the Bucca Hotel was negligent in relation to a concealed depression in the grassed area behind the hotel.' 'Whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent by walking through the grassed area where she fell.' "Whether the plaintiff's claim was statute barred, depending on whether the accident occurred on 29 November 1992 or 6 December 1992." "What damages should be assessed for the plaintiff's ankle injury, out of pocket expenses, and loss of earning capacity."]

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant knew of the grass-covered depression in the area behind the hotel and it was foreseeable that a pedestrian could be injured by stepping into it. The defendant did not discharge his duty of reasonable care merely by leaving the grass longer over the depression, because there was no warning notice, fencing or other deterrent. The defendant failed to prove contributory negligence. Hospital records and surrounding circumstances established on the balance of probabilities that the accident occurred on 6 December 1992, so the limitation defence failed. The plaintiff proved injury and loss warranting damages assessed at $80,520.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $80,520; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $80,520.' 'The question of costs was reserved to afford the parties the opportunity of making submissions.']