Homestyle Pty Ltd v Perrozzi

(2007) 33 WAR 209; [2007] WASCA 16

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Tort
2. › Negligence
3. › Occupiers' liability
4. › Display home open to public
5. › Unmarked transparent glass door at entrance
6. › Whether risk of injury reasonably foreseeable
7. › Whether glass should have been marked by motif or decorative treatment
8. › Relevance of Australian Standard 1288
9. › Obviousness of risk
10. › Standard of care
11. › Occupiers' Liability Act 1985 (WA), ss 2, 4, 5
1. Tort
2. › Negligence
3. › Contributory negligence
4. › Apportionment
5. › Challenge to trial judge's apportionment
6. › Whether 25% reduction was within applicable range
7. › Standard of appellate review of apportionment findings
1. Tort
2. › Negligence
3. › Occupiers' liability
4. › Relationship between Occupiers' Liability Act 1985 (WA) and common law principles
5. › Whether concurrent duties owed at common law and under statute
6. › Whether Act covers the field
7. › Occupiers' Liability Act 1985 (WA), ss 4, 5

Quick Take

The obviousness of a risk to an occupier's entrant is a relevant factor in determining breach of duty but is not conclusive, particularly where the premises have a commercial and public character. Australian Standards are admissible as evidence of both the foreseeability of a risk and the availability of simple precautions. Display homes open to the public are distinguishable from ordinary residential premises for the purpose of assessing the standard of care. The proper relationship between the Occupiers' Liability Act 1985 (WA) and common law negligence remains unresolved.