Neindorf v Junkovic [2005] HCA 75

Neindorf v Junkovic [2005] HCA 75

The duty of care owed by an occupier under s 17C(1) of the Wrongs Act 1936 (SA) does not extend, in the circumstances of this case, to require elimination or warning of a minor, obvious, and commonplace risk arising from an uneven surface in a residential driveway, which entrants could reasonably be expected to notice and avoid. Applying the statutory factors in s 17C(2), and considering the context as a modest garage sale at a domestic residence, it was not reasonable or practicable to require the appellant to take additional precautions. No breach of duty was established.

Parties
Appellant: Sandra Neindorf; Respondent: Marta Junkovic
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Negligence / Occupiers' Liability Appeal / High Court Appeal From Full Court of Supreme Court of South Australia
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Occupiers' Liability, Duty of Care, Standard of Care, Breach of Duty, Obvious Risk, Legislative Modification of Negligence Principles
Torts Negligence Occupiers' Liability Duty of Care Standard of Care Breach of Duty Obvious Risk Legislative Modification of Negligence Principles

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sandra Neindorf

Appellant

Marta Junkovic

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Negligence / Occupiers' Liability Appeal / High Court Appeal From Full Court of Supreme Court of South Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the occupier owe a duty of care to entrants in respect of a minor, obvious hazard on residential premises?
  2. 2 Was there a breach of the duty of care with respect to an obvious and minor uneven surface?
  3. 3 Was it reasonable and practicable for the occupier to take preventative measures regarding the hazard under the Wrongs Act 1936 (SA), s 17C?

Ratio Decidendi

The duty of care owed by an occupier under s 17C(1) of the Wrongs Act 1936 (SA) does not extend, in the circumstances of this case, to require elimination or warning of a minor, obvious, and commonplace risk arising from an uneven surface in a residential driveway, which entrants could reasonably be expected to notice and avoid. Applying the statutory factors in s 17C(2), and considering the context as a modest garage sale at a domestic residence, it was not reasonable or practicable to require the appellant to take additional precautions. No breach of duty was established.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Set aside pars 1, 2 and 3 of the orders of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia made on 15 October 2004 and, in their place, order that the appeal to that Court be dismissed.
  • Appellant to pay the respondent's costs in this Court.