TELFER v. BERKELEY CHALLENGE PTY. LIMITED [2000] NSWCA 24

Court of Appeal (NSW)|2000-03-08|Before: Mason P, Meagher JA, Powell JA

the application of stripping fluid to a vinyl surface produces a dangerous situation;

it was the slippery nature of the surface caused by the application of the stripper solution which caused the Appellant's fall;

the Appellant had failed to direct her mind to the possibility that during her absence the process of stripping might have progressed so far.

29 As these findings make clear, the work of stripping and repolishing a floor such as that in the Geology Lecture Theatre was such as to expose others, be they students or members of the general public or employees of the Respondent, to the risk of potentially serious injury if as the result of a failure to warn students or members of the general public, or of inadvertence on the part of one of its employees, one or other of them might move onto the floor after the stripping solution had been employed. At the time there was readily available to the Respondent a means - the placement of the warning signs to which I have earlier referred - which would have alerted students or members of the general public to the potential danger, or would have prevented its employees from inadvertently moving onto the floor in an area where the stripper had been placed. The placement of such signs at the top of the central aisle and at the top of the aisles on each side of the lecture theatre would have been a simple enough task and would not have interfered unduly with the carrying out by Ms. Palmer and the other members of her cleaning team of the task of stripping and repolishing the vinyl floor. 30 In all the circumstances, therefore, as I have previously indicated, it seems to me that the Respondent did fail in its duty to take reasonable care for the safety of the Appellant and, that being so, I conclude that the appeal should be upheld. 31 I propose the following Orders:

ORDER that the verdict found, and Judgment entered, in the District Court in favour of the Respondent be set aside.

ORDER that, in lieu thereof, there be found a verdict and Judgment entered in the District Court in favour of the Appellant for damages to be assessed.

ORDER that the proceedings be remitted to the District Court for the assessment of damages.

ORDER that the Respondent pay the Appellant's costs of the trial and of the appeal.

ORDER the costs of the hearing as to damages be reserved to the Judge conducting that hearing. *****

DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.

CITATION : TELFER v. BERKELEY CHALLENGE PTY. LIMITED [2000] NSWCA 24 FILE NUMBER(S) : CA 40100/99 HEARING DATE(S) : 15/02/2000 JUDGMENT DATE : 8 March 2000

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Catchwords

Source

Catchwords

Judgment (11 paragraphs)

Cases Cited (10)