Gorman v Wills [1906] HCA 84

Gorman v Wills [1906] HCA 84

On the facts, there was sufficient evidence that the defendants were in possession or control of the staircase and owed a duty of care to invitees using it. There was evidence from which a jury could infer that the dangerous condition of the staircase (worn lead, poor lighting) was known or ought reasonably to have been known to the defendants, and that they failed to take reasonable care. The existence of any repair covenant by the lessor did not diminish the lessees' duty to invitees. Evidence regarding lighting was relevant and should have been admitted, subject to proof that conditions were substantially the same at the relevant times. The matter should therefore be remitted for new...

Parties
Appellants; Defendants: Gorman and Another; Respondents; Plaintiffs: Wills and Wife
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 December 1906
Procedural Posture
Negligence Action / Appeal From Decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales
Outcome
Appeal dismissed. Order of the Supreme Court of New South Wales affirmed with variation as to costs.
Legal Topics
Occupiers' Liability, Negligence, Duty of Care, Business Premises, Invitation, Repair and Maintenance, Liability for State of Premises
Tort Law Occupiers' Liability Negligence Duty of Care Business Premises Invitation Repair and Maintenance Liability for State of Premises

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 50 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gorman and Another

Appellants; Defendants

Wills and Wife

Respondents; Plaintiffs

Procedural Posture

Negligence Action / Appeal From Decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants (occupiers/lessees) were liable for injuries caused by a dangerous staircase on business premises used by an invitee.
  2. 2 Whether the defendants had sufficient possession or control of the staircase to owe a duty of care.
  3. 3 Whether evidence existed to show negligence on the part of the defendants and if such should go to the jury.

Ratio Decidendi

On the facts, there was sufficient evidence that the defendants were in possession or control of the staircase and owed a duty of care to invitees using it. There was evidence from which a jury could infer that the dangerous condition of the staircase (worn lead, poor lighting) was known or ought reasonably to have been known to the defendants, and that they failed to take reasonable care. The existence of any repair covenant by the lessor did not diminish the lessees' duty to invitees. Evidence regarding lighting was relevant and should have been admitted, subject to proof that conditions were substantially the same at the relevant times. The matter should therefore be remitted for new...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed. Order of the Supreme Court of New South Wales affirmed with variation as to costs.

Orders

  • New trial ordered.
  • Costs of the first trial to be costs in the cause.