Schultz v McCormack [2014] NSWDC 67

Schultz v McCormack [2014] NSWDC 67

The injury arose from the materialisation of an obvious risk: the risk of slipping on wet stairs was or ought to have been obvious to a reasonable person in the plaintiff's position. The defendants did not know, nor ought to have known, of excessive slipperiness of the steps beyond the normal risk posed by wet steps. No prior accidents occurred. The evidence did not establish that reasonable precautions (warning, coated surface, matting, handrail, or awning) were required. Therefore, the defendants were not negligent. Even if negligence were found, the plaintiff's own failure to keep proper lookout and take care would have warranted finding her 50% contributorily negligent. Verdict and...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Tort – Occupier's Liability (civil Claim for Damages) / Principal Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the defendants; plaintiff to pay defendants' costs unless otherwise ordered.
Legal Topics
["occupier's Liability" 'obvious Risk' 'negligence' 'contributory Negligence' 'assessment of Damages']
['torts' 'personal Injury'] ["occupier's Liability" 'obvious Risk' 'negligence' 'contributory Negligence' 'assessment of Damages']

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

Tort – Occupier's Liability (civil Claim for Damages) / Principal Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff's fall and injury was due to the materialisation of an obvious risk" 'Whether the defendants were negligent' 'Whether there was contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff, and if so, to what extent' 'Assessment of damages']

Ratio Decidendi

The injury arose from the materialisation of an obvious risk: the risk of slipping on wet stairs was or ought to have been obvious to a reasonable person in the plaintiff's position. The defendants did not know, nor ought to have known, of excessive slipperiness of the steps beyond the normal risk posed by wet steps. No prior accidents occurred. The evidence did not establish that reasonable precautions (warning, coated surface, matting, handrail, or awning) were required. Therefore, the defendants were not negligent. Even if negligence were found, the plaintiff's own failure to keep proper lookout and take care would have warranted finding her 50% contributorily negligent. Verdict and...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the defendants; plaintiff to pay defendants' costs unless otherwise ordered.

Orders

  • ['Verdict and judgment for the defendants' "Plaintiff to pay defendants' costs on the ordinary basis unless otherwise ordered" 'The exhibits may be returned' 'Liberty to apply on 7 days notice if further orders are required']