Newcastle Entertainment Security Pty Limited v Simpson [1999] NSWCA 351

Newcastle Entertainment Security Pty Limited v Simpson [1999] NSWCA 351

The security firm owed and breached its duty of care to the plaintiff by failing to assist him safely when crowd surfing; neither the Centre manager nor promoter were found to owe a non-delegable duty by the majority. Liability for plaintiff’s injury was apportioned, and indemnity and damages issues were determined per contract and statute.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 September 1999
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment Following Appeal and Cross Appeal
Outcome
Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed (majority); orders as per Beazley JA's judgment.
Legal Topics
['negligence' 'non Delegable Duty of Care' 'contractual Indemnity' 'damages' 'contributory Negligence']
['tort Law' 'contract Law'] ['negligence' 'non Delegable Duty of Care' 'contractual Indemnity' 'damages' 'contributory Negligence']

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 / Judgment Following Appeal and Cross Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Liability for injury during crowd surfing at a concert' 'Whether Centre manager and promoter owed non-delegable duties of care' 'Proper construction and effect of indemnity clauses' 'Application of contributory negligence and voluntary assumption of risk' 'Apportionment of liability among tortfeasors' 'Excessiveness of damages']

Ratio Decidendi

The security firm owed and breached its duty of care to the plaintiff by failing to assist him safely when crowd surfing; neither the Centre manager nor promoter were found to owe a non-delegable duty by the majority. Liability for plaintiff’s injury was apportioned, and indemnity and damages issues were determined per contract and statute.

Court Disposition

Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed (majority); orders as per Beazley JA's judgment.

Orders

  • ['Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed.' 'Appellant to pay costs of other parties to the appeal.' 'Verdict for first respondent against appellant, second and third respondents in the sum of $22,000 plus interest.' 'Liability apportioned: 25% by second respondent, 50% by appellant, 25% by third respondent.' 'Second...