Stephens v Giovenco; Dick v Giovenco [2011] NSWCA 53

Stephens v Giovenco; Dick v Giovenco [2011] NSWCA 53

The majority held Mr Stephens (the plumber) did not owe a duty of care to Mr Harley, or alternatively (if owed), was not legally responsible for Mr Harley's death, as the risk was not reasonably foreseeable for someone with Mr Harley's knowledge; Mr Dick (property owner) was found liable, as he was aware of the live electricity risk and failed to engage an electrician or warn Mr Harley, and this breach was causally connected to Mr Harley's death, reduced for contributory negligence. Apportionment and treatment of costs followed this division of liability.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Orders of District Court set aside in part; new judgments entered reflecting appellant success and liability apportionment.
Legal Topics
['negligence' 'duty of Care' 'causation' 'contributory Negligence' 'liability Apportionment']
['tort Law'] ['negligence' 'duty of Care' 'causation' 'contributory Negligence' 'liability Apportionment']

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

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Mr Stephens (plumber) owed a duty of care to Mr Harley (deceased handyman) and whether any such duty was breached and caused Mr Harley's death" "Whether Mr Dick (property owner) owed a duty of care to Mr Harley and whether any breach caused Mr Harley's death" 'Whether risks were obvious and the impact of Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) ss 5F, 5G, 5H on liability' 'Whether contributory negligence by Mr Harley was established and its apportionment']

Ratio Decidendi

The majority held Mr Stephens (the plumber) did not owe a duty of care to Mr Harley, or alternatively (if owed), was not legally responsible for Mr Harley's death, as the risk was not reasonably foreseeable for someone with Mr Harley's knowledge; Mr Dick (property owner) was found liable, as he was aware of the live electricity risk and failed to engage an electrician or warn Mr Harley, and this breach was causally connected to Mr Harley's death, reduced for contributory negligence. Apportionment and treatment of costs followed this division of liability.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Orders of District Court set aside in part; new judgments entered reflecting appellant success and liability apportionment.

Orders

  • ["In matter 2010/79805: Appeal allowed; set aside primary orders for the appellant; verdict and judgment for appellant against first respondent; appellant's cross-claim against second respondent dismissed; written submissions on costs required." "In matter 2010/80871: Appeal allowed; set aside primary orders as...