Panther v Pischedda [2013] NSWCA 236

Panther v Pischedda [2013] NSWCA 236

The appeal failed because the primary judge was entitled to find that the steep driveway with smooth exposed stones created, when wet, a foreseeable risk of injury that was not insignificant; that the appellants knew or ought to have known of that risk; and that a reasonable occupier letting the flat for reward would have taken reasonable precautions such as installing a hand rail or providing usable alternative access. The appellants accepted that, if such precautions were available, the respondent would have used them and the accident would not have occurred. The challenge to the award for future domestic assistance also failed because the primary judge's assessment was open on the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal in Tort Negligence Occupier's Liability Proceedings / Court of Appeal Appeal From Decision of Curtis DCJ
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['slip and Fall on Driveway' 'foreseeable Risk of Harm' 'risk Not Insignificant' 'reasonable Precautions' 'handrails and Alternative Access' 'future Domestic Assistance']
['torts' 'negligence' "occupier's Liability" 'civil Liability' 'damages'] ['slip and Fall on Driveway' 'foreseeable Risk of Harm' 'risk Not Insignificant' 'reasonable Precautions' 'handrails and Alternative Access' 'future Domestic Assistance']

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

Appeal in Tort Negligence Occupier's Liability Proceedings / Court of Appeal Appeal From Decision of Curtis DCJ

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the wet steep driveway created a risk of injury that was not insignificant under s 5B(1)(b) of the Civil Liability Act 2002.' 'Whether the appellants knew or ought to have known of the risk under s 5B(1)(a) of the Civil Liability Act 2002.' "Whether a reasonable person in the appellants' position would have taken precautions such as installing a hand rail or providing alternative access under s 5B(1)(c) of the Civil Liability Act 2002." 'Whether the primary judge erred in allowing future domestic assistance at two hours per week at the commercial rate of $40 per hour.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because the primary judge was entitled to find that the steep driveway with smooth exposed stones created, when wet, a foreseeable risk of injury that was not insignificant; that the appellants knew or ought to have known of that risk; and that a reasonable occupier letting the flat for reward would have taken reasonable precautions such as installing a hand rail or providing usable alternative access. The appellants accepted that, if such precautions were available, the respondent would have used them and the accident would not have occurred. The challenge to the award for future domestic assistance also failed because the primary judge's assessment was open on the...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed with costs.']