Dwight v Supljeglav [2015] NSWDC 26

Dwight v Supljeglav [2015] NSWDC 26

The Defendant, as landlord, owed a duty of care to the Plaintiff as a visitor regarding the state and safety of common property, including maintaining proper illumination on the staircase. The failure to have a system of checking or repairing lights—especially after known storm damage—constituted a breach of duty. The risk of harm from an unlit staircase was foreseeable and not insignificant, and a reasonable person would have taken steps to remedy the defect. The Defendant did not adequately discharge his duty by delegating to another without proper oversight. The Plaintiff's actions did not amount to contributory negligence in the circumstances. Damages assessed and awarded accordingly.

Parties
Plaintiff: Robyn Dwight; Defendant: Milos Supljeglav
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Tort Negligence Personal Injury / Principal Judgment
Outcome
Verdict and judgment for the Plaintiff
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Landlord’s Duty, Obvious Risk, Contributory Negligence, Damages
Tort Law Personal Injury Landlord and Tenant Occupiers' Liability Negligence Duty of Care Landlord’s Duty Obvious Risk +2 more

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 6 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robyn Dwight

Plaintiff

Milos Supljeglav

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Tort Negligence Personal Injury / Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the landlord owed a duty of care to the Plaintiff regarding the state of the lighting in common areas; Whether the landlord breached that duty of care; Whether the risk was foreseeable and not insignificant; Whether reasonable precautions were taken; Whether the Plaintiff contributed to her injury (contributory negligence); Assessment of damages

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant, as landlord, owed a duty of care to the Plaintiff as a visitor regarding the state and safety of common property, including maintaining proper illumination on the staircase. The failure to have a system of checking or repairing lights—especially after known storm damage—constituted a breach of duty. The risk of harm from an unlit staircase was foreseeable and not insignificant, and a reasonable person would have taken steps to remedy the defect. The Defendant did not adequately discharge his duty by delegating to another without proper oversight. The Plaintiff's actions did not amount to contributory negligence in the circumstances. Damages assessed and awarded accordingly.

Court Disposition

Verdict and judgment for the Plaintiff

Orders

  • The Plaintiff recover the sum of $269,612 from the Defendant; verdict and judgment entered for the Plaintiff; costs to be addressed separately.