David Jones (Canberra) Pty Ltd v Stone [1970] HCA 28

David Jones (Canberra) Pty Ltd v Stone [1970] HCA 28

The escalator gap was not an unusual danger for a child accompanied and under the control of an adult; the duty of care owed to the child as an invitee or licensee did not require warning of such a gap, and the child’s conduct (sitting and inserting fingers in the gap after being released from control) was outside the scope of the invitation or permission. No breach of duty was found.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
['negligence' "occupiers' Liability" 'duty of Care' 'invitee' 'unusual Danger' 'child Injuries']
['tort Law'] ['negligence' "occupiers' Liability" 'duty of Care' 'invitee' 'unusual Danger' 'child Injuries']

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 Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the occupier owed a duty of care to the child as an invitee' 'Whether there was an unusual danger requiring warning' 'Whether the defendant breached its duty by failing to warn of the gap on the escalator' "Whether the child's actions while accompanied by an adult fell within the scope of the invitation"]

Ratio Decidendi

The escalator gap was not an unusual danger for a child accompanied and under the control of an adult; the duty of care owed to the child as an invitee or licensee did not require warning of such a gap, and the child’s conduct (sitting and inserting fingers in the gap after being released from control) was outside the scope of the invitation or permission. No breach of duty was found.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the plaintiff set aside' 'Judgment entered for the defendant' 'Defendant awarded costs']