Mountney v Smith [1904] HCA 7

Mountney v Smith [1904] HCA 7

The barmaid, as the person apparently representing the proprietor at the bar, had the apparent authority to direct customers to facilities which the hotelkeeper is legally obliged to provide. The plaintiff, as a customer, was entitled to act upon the barmaid’s directions and was an invitee on the part of the premises where the injury occurred. The evidence of the conversation was admissible to show this invitation and the defendant’s duty. There was sufficient evidence of negligence and connection between the premises and the defendant’s business. The Rule Nisi for a new trial was wrongly made absolute; the original verdict for the plaintiff should stand.

Parties
Appellant; Plaintiff: Mountney; Respondent; Defendant: Smith
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 March 1904
Procedural Posture
Appeal (negligence; Personal Injury) / High Court of Australia Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales (from Order Making Absolute a Rule Nisi for a New Trial)
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Rule Nisi for new trial discharged.
Legal Topics
Occupier's Liability, Duty of Care to Invitees, Scope of Authority of Servants, Evidentiary Admissibility (agency), Breach of Statutory Duty (liquor Act)
Tort Law Negligence Occupier's Liability Duty of Care to Invitees Scope of Authority of Servants Evidentiary Admissibility (agency) Breach of Statutory Duty (liquor Act)

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 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mountney

Appellant; Plaintiff

Smith

Respondent; Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (negligence; Personal Injury) / High Court of Australia Appeal From Supreme Court of New South Wales (from Order Making Absolute a Rule Nisi for a New Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the hotelkeeper owed a duty of care to the plaintiff (customer) in relation to the dangerous state of the premises.
  2. 2 Whether the conversation between the barmaid and the plaintiff was admissible to show that the plaintiff was on the premises by invitation of the proprietor or agent.
  3. 3 Whether it was within the apparent authority of the barmaid to direct customers to the lavatory, which the hotelkeeper was legally bound to provide.

Ratio Decidendi

The barmaid, as the person apparently representing the proprietor at the bar, had the apparent authority to direct customers to facilities which the hotelkeeper is legally obliged to provide. The plaintiff, as a customer, was entitled to act upon the barmaid’s directions and was an invitee on the part of the premises where the injury occurred. The evidence of the conversation was admissible to show this invitation and the defendant’s duty. There was sufficient evidence of negligence and connection between the premises and the defendant’s business. The Rule Nisi for a new trial was wrongly made absolute; the original verdict for the plaintiff should stand.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Rule Nisi for new trial discharged.

Orders

  • Order of Supreme Court making Rule Nisi absolute for a new trial discharged.
  • Rule Nisi discharged with costs.