Steven Jelic v Edward Bader and Gerardina Bader [2010] NSWDC 329

Steven Jelic v Edward Bader and Gerardina Bader [2010] NSWDC 329

The court held that the defendants were negligent because there was a reasonably foreseeable, non-fanciful risk of physical injury to a first-time business visitor arising from the combination of an unmarked fixed full-height glass panel near the entrance, stairs directing the plaintiff toward that panel, ceramic tiles with rugs not fully secured by adhesive material, and absence of warning or visual identification distinguishing the panel from a door. The plaintiff's accident and injuries were caused by that breach, but damages were reduced by 20 percent because the plaintiff was aware he was in unfamiliar surroundings, may not have been looking where he was going, and should have been...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Personal Injury Negligence Damages Claim / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $243,250 after a 20 percent reduction for contributory negligence. The judgment was noted in the heading as having been reversed by the Court of Appeal in Bader v Jelic [2011] NSWCA 255.
Legal Topics
['foreseeability of Risk' 'trip Hazard' 'plate Glass Window' 'duty of Care of Occupiers' 'causation' 'contributory Negligence' 'non Economic Loss' 'loss of Earning Capacity' 'out of Pocket Expenses']
['torts' 'negligence' 'personal Injury' "occupiers' Liability" 'damages'] ['foreseeability of Risk' 'trip Hazard' 'plate Glass Window' 'duty of Care of Occupiers' 'causation' 'contributory Negligence' 'non Economic Loss' 'loss of Earning Capacity' 'out of Pocket Expenses']

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 Damages Claim / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendants were negligent in allowing rugs on ceramic tiles and an unmarked full-height plate glass panel to create a foreseeable risk of injury to a first-time business visitor.' "Whether the accident and the plaintiff's physical and psychological injuries were caused by the defendants' breach of duty." "Whether the plaintiff's alcohol problems, gambling problems, depression and anxiety were attributable to or exacerbated by the accident." 'What damages should be awarded for non-economic loss, past and future out-of-pocket expenses, past wage loss and future loss of earning capacity.' 'Whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent and, if so, by what percentage damages should be reduced.']

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the defendants were negligent because there was a reasonably foreseeable, non-fanciful risk of physical injury to a first-time business visitor arising from the combination of an unmarked fixed full-height glass panel near the entrance, stairs directing the plaintiff toward that panel, ceramic tiles with rugs not fully secured by adhesive material, and absence of warning or visual identification distinguishing the panel from a door. The plaintiff's accident and injuries were caused by that breach, but damages were reduced by 20 percent because the plaintiff was aware he was in unfamiliar surroundings, may not have been looking where he was going, and should have been...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $243,250 after a 20 percent reduction for contributory negligence. The judgment was noted in the heading as having been reversed by the Court of Appeal in Bader v Jelic [2011] NSWCA 255.

Orders

  • ['Verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $304,064.' 'In accordance with the finding of 20 percent contributory negligence, judgment entered for the plaintiff in the sum of $243,250.' "The defendants to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings, subject to the notation concerning reserved costs." "After 4pm on...