Sartor v Bitton [2019] NSWDC 723

Sartor v Bitton [2019] NSWDC 723

The defendants were negligent in failing to provide an appropriate safety induction and risk warning to the plaintiff, who was an inexperienced passenger, about the dangers of crossing a river bar and how to hold on or secure herself. This breach of duty caused the plaintiff’s injuries, as it was not an obvious risk to her and she had no knowledge or appreciation of the required precautions. The claims based on contract and the Australian Consumer Law succeeded due to the same facts. The evidence did not establish contributory negligence or that the injury resulted from an inherent, obvious, or dangerous recreational risk within the meaning of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW).

Parties
First Plaintiff: Robert Sartor; Second Plaintiff: Megan Short; First Defendant: Glynn James Bitton; Second Defendant: Julie Bitton
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the second plaintiff against the defendants for $269,058.51 plus costs.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Personal Injury, Duty of Care, Civil Liability, Contract for Services, Statutory Guarantee, Damages
Torts Contracts Consumer Protection Negligence Personal Injury Duty of Care Civil Liability Contract for Services +2 more

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 6 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Sartor

First Plaintiff

Megan Short

Second Plaintiff

Glynn James Bitton

First Defendant

Julie Bitton

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants breached their duty of care to the plaintiff when operating a fishing charter vessel through a river bar
  2. 2 Whether the defendants failed to provide an adequate safety induction and risk warning to passengers
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff contributed to her injuries by failing to hold on or secure herself appropriately

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants were negligent in failing to provide an appropriate safety induction and risk warning to the plaintiff, who was an inexperienced passenger, about the dangers of crossing a river bar and how to hold on or secure herself. This breach of duty caused the plaintiff’s injuries, as it was not an obvious risk to her and she had no knowledge or appreciation of the required precautions. The claims based on contract and the Australian Consumer Law succeeded due to the same facts. The evidence did not establish contributory negligence or that the injury resulted from an inherent, obvious, or dangerous recreational risk within the meaning of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW).

Court Disposition

Judgment for the second plaintiff against the defendants for $269,058.51 plus costs.

Orders

  • Judgment for the second plaintiff against the defendants for $269,058.51.
  • Order the defendants to pay the second plaintiff's costs as agreed or assessed.