Richards v Hill & Hill [2010] NSWSC 949

Richards v Hill & Hill [2010] NSWSC 949

Although the plaintiff was an unsatisfactory witness in several respects, contemporaneous medical records and surrounding evidence established on the balance of probabilities that he slipped and fell when endeavouring to descend the stairs from the shearing board. The defendants owed him an occupiers duty and breached it because a reasonable occupier, appreciating the shearing activities, pace of work, and likelihood of urine or excrement on footwear, would have foreseen the risk of slipping at or near the board edge and taken the inexpensive and effective step of installing a non-slip strip above the stairs. The plaintiff was contributorily negligent by failing to use an available...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 September 2010
Procedural Posture
Common Law Negligence Claim for Damages for Personal Injury Against Occupiers of a Shearing Shed / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for $462,508, with costs.
Legal Topics
['breach of Occupiers Duty Causing Harm' 'contributory Negligence' 'action Against Person Other Than Employer' 'application of S 151 Z of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (nsw)' 'assessment of Damages' 'gratuitous Attendant Care Services']
['negligence' "occupiers' Liability" 'personal Injury Damages' 'workers Compensation'] ['breach of Occupiers Duty Causing Harm' 'contributory Negligence' 'action Against Person Other Than Employer' 'application of S 151 Z of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (nsw)' 'assessment of Damages' 'gratuitous Attendant Care Services']

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

Common Law Negligence Claim for Damages for Personal Injury Against Occupiers of a Shearing Shed / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff was injured in the manner claimed, by slipping and falling when endeavouring to descend stairs from the shearing board.' 'Whether the defendants, as occupiers, breached their duty of care by failing to provide a reasonably safe means of access, including a non-slip strip at the edge of the board above the stairs.' 'Whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent by failing to use the handrail beside the stairs.' "How responsibility should be apportioned between the plaintiff's employer and the defendants under s 151Z of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW)." 'What damages should be assessed for non-economic loss, economic loss, out of pocket expenses, superannuation, and future assistance.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the plaintiff was an unsatisfactory witness in several respects, contemporaneous medical records and surrounding evidence established on the balance of probabilities that he slipped and fell when endeavouring to descend the stairs from the shearing board. The defendants owed him an occupiers duty and breached it because a reasonable occupier, appreciating the shearing activities, pace of work, and likelihood of urine or excrement on footwear, would have foreseen the risk of slipping at or near the board edge and taken the inexpensive and effective step of installing a non-slip strip above the stairs. The plaintiff was contributorily negligent by failing to use an available...

Court Disposition

Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for $462,508, with costs.

Orders

  • ['Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff for $462,508.' "Order that the defendants pay the plaintiff's costs of the cause."]