RYU v KARADJIAN [2006] NSWCA 144

RYU v KARADJIAN [2006] NSWCA 144

The respondent breached her duty of care by failing to warn the appellant, an experienced tiler lawfully on site for a quotation, that the gyprock sheets concealed substantial apertures in the balcony. Given the appearance of the site and the lack of indication the sheets covered a hazard, it was not unreasonable for the appellant to step on them, and in the circumstances, there was no contributory negligence on his part.

Parties
Appellant: Tai Ak Ryu; Respondent: Virginia Karadjian
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 June 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment for the appellant entered for $163,696 with no deduction for contributory negligence; respondent to pay appellant's costs of trial and appeal, subject to a certificate under the Suitor's Fund Act 1951 if qualified.
Legal Topics
Occupiers' Liability, Duty of Care, Breach of Duty, Contributory Negligence
Tort Law Negligence Occupiers' Liability Duty of Care Breach of Duty Contributory Negligence

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tai Ak Ryu

Appellant

Virginia Karadjian

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent, as occupier and owner-builder, breached her duty of care to the appellant by failing to warn or otherwise protect against the danger posed by gyprock sheets covering apertures on a balcony.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant, an experienced tiler, was contributorily negligent in stepping on the gyprock sheets covering apertures rather than walking around them.

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent breached her duty of care by failing to warn the appellant, an experienced tiler lawfully on site for a quotation, that the gyprock sheets concealed substantial apertures in the balcony. Given the appearance of the site and the lack of indication the sheets covered a hazard, it was not unreasonable for the appellant to step on them, and in the circumstances, there was no contributory negligence on his part.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment for the appellant entered for $163,696 with no deduction for contributory negligence; respondent to pay appellant's costs of trial and appeal, subject to a certificate under the Suitor's Fund Act 1951 if qualified.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Set aside the verdict and judgment of Acting Judge Murray dated 13 August 2004 in favour of the respondent.