Shanice Titus v MHC Leisure Fund Services Pty Ltd trading as MHC Property Trust No. 1 Op Trust No. 1 & Anor [2017] NSWDC 162

Shanice Titus v MHC Leisure Fund Services Pty Ltd trading as MHC Property Trust No. 1 Op Trust No. 1 & Anor [2017] NSWDC 162

The plaintiff failed to take reasonable care for her own safety because, despite knowing the keg chute was used for beer deliveries and that its open door was attached by chains to the hotel wall, she did not observe the semi-trailer, deliverymen or open door. However, the keg chute opening itself was not obvious, appeared like a discoloured part of the footpath, had no warning or barrier, and the defendants' breach was substantially greater. It was just and equitable to reduce damages by 10% for contributory negligence. The plaintiff proved injuries and continuing restrictions warranting damages totalling $133,928 before reduction and $120,535 after reduction.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Personal Injury Negligence Claim / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $120,535.00, with the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs.
Legal Topics
['contributory Negligence by Pedestrian' 'obvious Risk' 'assessment of Damages' 'non Economic Loss' 'future Treatment Expenses' 'past Wage Loss' 'future Economic Loss']
['torts' 'civil Liability' 'personal Injury Damages'] ['contributory Negligence by Pedestrian' 'obvious Risk' 'assessment of Damages' 'non Economic Loss' 'future Treatment Expenses' 'past Wage Loss' 'future Economic Loss']

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 Personal Injury Negligence Claim / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence.' 'What damages should be awarded for non-economic loss, future treatment expenses, past wage loss and future economic loss.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to take reasonable care for her own safety because, despite knowing the keg chute was used for beer deliveries and that its open door was attached by chains to the hotel wall, she did not observe the semi-trailer, deliverymen or open door. However, the keg chute opening itself was not obvious, appeared like a discoloured part of the footpath, had no warning or barrier, and the defendants' breach was substantially greater. It was just and equitable to reduce damages by 10% for contributory negligence. The plaintiff proved injuries and continuing restrictions warranting damages totalling $133,928 before reduction and $120,535 after reduction.

Court Disposition

Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $120,535.00, with the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs.

Orders

  • ['There will be a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $120,535.00.' "The defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings." 'The exhibits are to be returned forthwith.' "If either party is to apply for a special costs order, such application is to be made by Notice of Motion, together...