Roberts Solicitors
Solicitors in Sydney

They said that any duty of concern they might have owed to the plaintiff had not been breached. What duty of care was needed of the occupier of the premises? The Occupier owed to lift passengers, including the Plaintiff, a duty to exercise plausible concern for their safety. In relation to each of the issues raised on Appeal, the Court of Appeal found that: 1. The primary judge did not err in understanding that the Nominal Defendant’s negligence was a necessary condition of the Plaintiff’s harm, as healthy as the Plaintiff’s, and it was appropriate to apportion respective responsibility through contributory negligence. Whether the Council and owner of the Plaza breached duty of care to Plaintiff having regard to Plaintiff’s obligation to receive plausible care for her own safety. As a roads' authority, the Council had a sure duty to exercise plausible care so that the stairs were safe for users exercising reasonable care for their own safety. Did the Trial Judge errs in his assessment of damages? As the employer was held partly liable, application of Section 151Z of the Workers' Compensation Act was applied to diminish the Plaintiff’s damages. A nondelegable duty is a certain duty, for instance, the duty to ensure that plausible protection is taken to avoid injury to the plaintiff. Whether or not the Trial Judge erred in finding that a hole, into which an injured pedestrian had fallen, was a hazard that was not known and accordingly the Council breached its duty of care to the injured pedestrian in unsuccessful to identify and rectify the defect. Did the Trial Judge errs in finding that S had not breached any duty of care owed to G in not improving the driveway to hinder slipping. Did the Trial Judge errs in accepting the subjective evidence of S in light of all the evidence? What evidence is necessary to establish negligence against an occupier? Where a risk is known to a person exercising believable protection for his or her own safety, the notion that the occupier must warn the entrant about that risk is neither reasonable nor just. H was injured in a motor vehicle accident. Once finding made that no other vehicle present, Court was bound to find against P as he had maintained both in pleading and in evidence there was no other cause for the accident. It depends on the assessment by the trial judge of the expert's evidence as a whole. A landlord's duty of care is encourage by reference to risks foreseeable to the average person and what a plausible person would do in response to those risks. Was the trial judges assessment of contributory negligence excessive? Should the Court of Appeal assess damages when the trial judge had made a provisional assessment but not had regard to all head of damage or evidence? When a Plaintiff's negligence caused or contributed to the accident, will the accident fall within the 'blameless accident' provisions in Division 1 of Segment 1.2 of the Motor Accidents' Compensation Act. Does the owner of a faulty motor vehicle owe a duty to prohibit others from driving the vehicle? A finding of 15 contributory negligence on the part of the Plaintiff was found.