GHABOUR v ROYAL PRINCE ALFRED HOSPITAL [1996] NSWCA 207

GHABOUR v ROYAL PRINCE ALFRED HOSPITAL [1996] NSWCA 207

Since there was evidence in support of both plaintiff and defendant and material issues of credit, the jury was entitled to return a verdict for the defendants; no grounds were shown for interfering with the jury's findings.

Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: UR Ghabour; Respondent/defendant: Royal Prince Alfred Hospital; Second Respondent/defendant: Dr Harvey
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 September 1996
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Jury Verdict
Outcome
appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Personal Injury, Employer's Liability, Duty of Care, Causation, Jury Verdict
Tort Law Negligence Personal Injury Employer's Liability Duty of Care Causation Jury Verdict

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

UR Ghabour

Appellant/plaintiff

Royal Prince Alfred Hospital

Respondent/defendant

Dr Harvey

Second Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Jury Verdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the jury's verdict in favour of the defendants was perverse and against the weight of evidence
  2. 2 Whether the hospital was negligent in allowing the plaintiff to use a machine on a wet, waxed surface
  3. 3 Whether the hospital failed to ensure the plaintiff wore rubber-soled shoes

Ratio Decidendi

Since there was evidence in support of both plaintiff and defendant and material issues of credit, the jury was entitled to return a verdict for the defendants; no grounds were shown for interfering with the jury's findings.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Costs of the second respondent ordered to be paid on an indemnity basis.