STEINER v COMMISSIONER FOR MAIN ROADS [1990] NSWCA 172

STEINER v COMMISSIONER FOR MAIN ROADS [1990] NSWCA 172

The jury was entitled, on the evidence, to reject the appellant's claim as to how he sustained his injuries. There was a rational basis for the verdict, in light of inconsistencies in the appellant's evidence and alternative explanations for his fall.

Parties
Appellant: Steiner; Respondent: Commissioner for Main Roads
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 August 1990
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Nuisance
Tort Negligence Nuisance

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Steiner

Appellant

Commissioner for Main Roads

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's fall and injury occurred as alleged.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent was negligent or liable in nuisance for not preventing the alleged hazard.
  3. 3 Whether the jury's rejection of the appellant's claim was unreasonable or against the weight of evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The jury was entitled, on the evidence, to reject the appellant's claim as to how he sustained his injuries. There was a rational basis for the verdict, in light of inconsistencies in the appellant's evidence and alternative explanations for his fall.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.