An occupier who knows, or ought to know, of a practice of entrants engaging in obviously dangerous conduct on the premises has a duty to take reasonable precautions to guard against the risk, even where the conduct involves a deliberate assumption of risk by the entrant. The failure to call available witnesses who could have given evidence about knowledge of such a practice may give rise to a Jones v Dunkel inference. The contractual duty of a residential college to fee-paying students includes monitoring the conduct of persons on the premises to recognise dangerous situations or the development of dangerous practices. Machine-generated hospital blood alcohol test results are admissible under s 146 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) as evidence produced by a process, but may warrant exclusion under s 135 where there is insufficient evidence of the test's reliability.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 11 later cases that cite this judgment.