Hair v Munro [2013] NSWDC 25

Hair v Munro [2013] NSWDC 25

By 21 May 2010 Ms Munro was no longer the occupier because she had effectively vacated the premises, removed her goods and was present for the final inspection, while the landlords had resumed control by entering with their own key and carrying out work. Mr Dillon, acting as landlord and occupier, placed a worn outdoor mat inside on a recently cleaned polished floor without checking or securing it. The risk that an unsecured small mat would slip when stepped on was foreseeable, not insignificant and easily preventable. But for that negligent placement of the mat the plaintiff would not have fallen. Ms Munro was not liable because she was not the occupier, did not place the mat, and had no...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Personal Injury Claim / Principal Judgment After Hearing and Final Orders After Submissions on Costs
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff against the second and third defendants for $213,764; judgment for the first defendant against the plaintiff; both cross-claims dismissed; costs orders made.
Legal Topics
['identity of the Occupier' 'duty of Care' 'breach of Duty' 'causation' 'contributory Negligence' 'assessment of Damages' 'costs']
['personal Injury' 'negligence' "occupiers' Liability" 'civil Liability' 'workers Compensation'] ['identity of the Occupier' 'duty of Care' 'breach of Duty' 'causation' 'contributory Negligence' 'assessment of Damages' 'costs']

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 Personal Injury Claim / Principal Judgment After Hearing and Final Orders After Submissions on Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Emma Munro or the landlords were the occupiers of the premises on 21 May 2010.' 'Whether any defendant owed and breached a duty of care to the plaintiff in relation to a mat placed on a polished floor.' "Whether the placement of the mat caused the plaintiff's fall and injury." 'Whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent.' "What damages should be awarded for the plaintiff's fractured patella and related losses."]

Ratio Decidendi

By 21 May 2010 Ms Munro was no longer the occupier because she had effectively vacated the premises, removed her goods and was present for the final inspection, while the landlords had resumed control by entering with their own key and carrying out work. Mr Dillon, acting as landlord and occupier, placed a worn outdoor mat inside on a recently cleaned polished floor without checking or securing it. The risk that an unsecured small mat would slip when stepped on was foreseeable, not insignificant and easily preventable. But for that negligent placement of the mat the plaintiff would not have fallen. Ms Munro was not liable because she was not the occupier, did not place the mat, and had no...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff against the second and third defendants for $213,764; judgment for the first defendant against the plaintiff; both cross-claims dismissed; costs orders made.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the plaintiff against the second and third defendants for $213,764.' 'Judgment for the first defendant against the plaintiff.' 'Both cross-claims dismissed.' "The second and third defendants are to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings." "The plaintiff is to pay the first defendant's costs of...