Hill v Chiaverini

[2004] NSWCA 265

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Tort Law
2. › Negligence
3. › Occupier's liability
4. › Breach of duty
5. › Reasonableness of response to foreseeable risk of injury
6. › System of cleaning
7. › Whether system adequate
8. › Whether evidence of breakdown of system
1. Tort Law
2. › Negligence
3. › Occupier's liability
4. › Content of duty of care
5. › Entrant taking shortcut across garden bed
6. › Whether duty varied with circumstances of entry
7. › Expectation that plaintiff would take reasonable care for own safety
1. Appeal
2. › Standard of appellate review
3. › Appeal from finding of no breach of duty of care
4. › Whether trial judge's conclusion should be disturbed

Quick Take

A twice-daily cleaning system for a car park is a reasonable response to the foreseeable risk that pebbles may be kicked or thrown from an adjacent garden bed, absent evidence that the system broke down. Photographs taken months after an accident showing debris do not, without more, establish that a cleaning system was defective at the time of the accident. The plaintiff's failure to take care for her own safety is relevant to the content of the duty and what is reasonable for the occupier, but does not negate the duty of care.