Owner and Occupier Liable for Negligence in Managing Premises
📌 In brief
The NSW Court of Appeal ruled that an owner and occupier of premises can be held liable for negligence if they direct a manager to perform unsafe tasks without proper instruction or assistance. The court affirmed the trial judge's decision that the manager was not contributorily negligent.
📚 Full judgment
The summary, holding and questions above are VadeLab’s own material. The official decision itself is published by the court, and we do not reproduce it on this page.
📄 Read the full judgment⚖️ View on the official court website ↗
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The owner and occupier of the premises owed a duty of care to the manager, similar to an employer's duty.
- The owner negligently directed the manager to move heavy safes without proper instruction or assistance.
- The manager complained about her back injury the day after moving the safes, supported by her superior's testimony.
- It was unrealistic to expect the manager to disobey the instruction to move the safes, given her dedication and sense of duty.
- The case was run at trial on the basis of a single injury caused by multiple incidents, which the judge was justified in adopting.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The argument that the manager did not move the safes or injure her back doing so was not supported by incontrovertible evidence.
- The argument that the manager should have waited for other men to move the safes was not raised during cross-examination or closing address at trial.
- The argument that the manager did not take adequate care for her own safety was rejected because she was following specific instructions.
- The argument that the employer's negligence should reduce damages was rejected because it was not pleaded or argued at trial.
- The argument that damages for non-economic loss should be assessed for two separate injuries was rejected because the statement of claim pleaded one injury.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the person who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
For someone in a similar situation, the decision means that an owner and occupier of premises can be held liable for negligence if they direct a manager to perform unsafe tasks without proper instruction or assistance.