De Roma v Inner West Council & Ausgrid [2022] NSWDC 425

De Roma v Inner West Council & Ausgrid [2022] NSWDC 425

Ausgrid breached its duty of care by failing to warn pedestrians via visible marking of a trip hazard due to a sunken pit lid in the footpath, resulting in injury to the plaintiff. The risk was not obvious from the pedestrian's perspective, and the plaintiff was contributorily negligent by momentarily failing to attentively observe the hazard, leading to a 20% reduction in damages.

Parties
Plaintiff: Lynda Gabriel de Roma; First Defendant: Inner West Council; Fourth Defendant: Ausgrid Operator Partnership t/as Ausgrid
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 September 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for plaintiff against fourth defendant (Ausgrid) for negligence, contributory negligence at 20%; plaintiff's claim against first defendant (Council) dismissed.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Contributory Negligence, Obvious Risk Defence, Damages, Assessment of Damages
Tort Law Personal Injury Occupiers Liability Negligence Contributory Negligence Obvious Risk Defence Damages 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 5 Authorities cited 48 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lynda Gabriel de Roma

Plaintiff

Inner West Council

First Defendant

Ausgrid Operator Partnership t/as Ausgrid

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants owed a duty of care to the plaintiff as occupiers; Whether either defendant breached duty of care; Whether the plaintiff's injuries were caused by negligence; Whether the risk was an 'obvious risk'; Whether and to what extent there was contributory negligence; Proper assessment of damages

Ratio Decidendi

Ausgrid breached its duty of care by failing to warn pedestrians via visible marking of a trip hazard due to a sunken pit lid in the footpath, resulting in injury to the plaintiff. The risk was not obvious from the pedestrian's perspective, and the plaintiff was contributorily negligent by momentarily failing to attentively observe the hazard, leading to a 20% reduction in damages.

Court Disposition

Judgment for plaintiff against fourth defendant (Ausgrid) for negligence, contributory negligence at 20%; plaintiff's claim against first defendant (Council) dismissed.

Orders

  • Verdict and judgment for Inner West Council on plaintiff's claim; plaintiff to pay Council's costs on ordinary basis unless otherwise ordered.
  • Verdict for plaintiff against Ausgrid in amount of $354,142.38; judgment after 20% contributory negligence in sum of $283,314.