Rabay & Anor v Bristow [2005] NSWCA 199

Rabay & Anor v Bristow [2005] NSWCA 199

The occupiers breached their duty by failing to remove an obvious hazard integrated into their delivery system, knowing delivery drivers would be distracted by the nature of the task. The respondent was not guilty of contributory negligence as his inadvertence amounted to an error of judgment. The damages calculations for non-economic and economic loss were within permissible discretion.

Parties
Appellant: Riad Rabay & Therese Rabay; Respondent: George Bristow
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 June 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Negligence, Occupier's Liability, Contributory Negligence, Damages Assessment
Tort Law Negligence Occupier's Liability Contributory Negligence Damages Assessment

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 5 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Riad Rabay & Therese Rabay

Appellant

George Bristow

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the occupier breach its duty of care to the contractor delivery driver?
  2. 2 Was the delivery driver guilty of contributory negligence?
  3. 3 Did the primary judge err in calculation of non-economic loss and assessment of future earning capacity?

Ratio Decidendi

The occupiers breached their duty by failing to remove an obvious hazard integrated into their delivery system, knowing delivery drivers would be distracted by the nature of the task. The respondent was not guilty of contributory negligence as his inadvertence amounted to an error of judgment. The damages calculations for non-economic and economic loss were within permissible discretion.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Appellants to pay respondent's costs