South Sydney Junior Rugby Leagues Club Limited v Gioia & Ors [2000] NSWCA 249

New South Wales Court of Appeal

CITATION : South Sydney Junior Rugby Leagues Club Limited v Gioia & Ors [2000] NSWCA 249 FILE NUMBER(S) : CA 40473/98; 40474/98; 40475/98; 40476/98; 40477/98 HEARING DATE(S) : 18 May 2000 JUDGMENT DATE : 6 September 2000

PARTIES : South Sydney Junior Rugby Leagues Club Limited v Francis Gioia; South Sydney Junior Rugby Leagues Club Limited v Pauline D'Albora; South Sydney Junior Rugby Leagues Club Limited v Angelo Dimento as the executor of the estate of the late Giuiseppina Crisafi; South Sydney Junior Rugby Leagues Club Limited v Joseph D'Albora by his tutor Peter D'Albora; South Sydney Junior Rugby Leagues Club Limited v Pauline Gioia. JUDGMENT OF : Meagher JA at 1; Powell JA at 8; Stein JA at 20

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : District Court LOWER COURT 3128/95; 6427/95; 3129/95; 9461/95; 7472/96 FILE NUMBER(S) : LOWER COURT Quickenden ADCJ JUDICIAL OFFICER :

COUNSEL : Appellant: I. Harrison SC Respondent: T. Hughes QC/T. Hughes SOLICITORS : Appellant: Riley Gray-Spencer Respondents: G H Healey & Co CATCHWORDS : Negligence, personal injury, damages, evidence. Fryer v Gathercole (1849) 13 Jur (Pt 1) 542 CASES CITED: Sydelman v Beckwith (1875) 43.Conn. 12 R v McKimmie [1957] VR 93, R v Whitby (1957) 74 WN(NSW) 441, Sherrard v Jacob [1965] NI 151 DECISION : Appeal dismissed with costs

- 9 - SOUTH SYDNEY JUNIOR RUGBY LEAGUES CLUB Limited V Francis GIOIA & ORS NEGLIGENCE-PERSONAL INJURY-DAMAGES - EVIDENCE OF A LAY PERSON AS TO ESTIMATE OF SPEED

Facts: The respondents were a family group celebrating a christening on the appellant's premises. An elderly member of the family need assistance in getting onto an escalator. Several family members cam to her assistance, however, she fell, other s fell and five of the group were injured. They sued the appellants in negligence for, amongst other things, failing to ensure the escalator was not travelling too quickly. The trial judge found the appellants breached their duty of care in this respect. The appeal against this decisions was argued on the basis that lay witnesses had given evidence as to whether the escalator was in fact travelling too fast.