Taber v NSW Land and Housing Corporation [2001] NSWCA 182

New South Wales Court of Appeal

CITATION : Taber v NSW Land and Housing Corporation [2001] NSWCA 182 FILE NUMBER(S) : CA 40889/00 HEARING DATE(S) : 8 June 2001 JUDGMENT DATE : 19 June 2001

PARTIES : Colette Taber v NSW Land and Housing Corporation JUDGMENT OF : Heydon JA at 1; Ipp AJA at 2; Rolfe AJA at 3

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : District Court LOWER COURT DC 3994/98 FILE NUMBER(S) : LOWER COURT Bowden ADCJ JUDICIAL OFFICER :

COUNSEL : Appellant - A.J. Morrison SC / R.I. Goodridge Respondent - A. Katzmann SC / J. Springthorpe SOLICITORS : Appellant - Firths The Compensation Lawyers Respondent - McCabes, Lawyers CATCHWORDS : Negligence - duty of care - causation - personal injury - leased premises. LEGISLATION CITED : Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) ss 55(1), 78 Chappel v Hart (1988) 195 CLR 332 Ellis v Wallsend District Hospital (1989) 17 NSWLR 553 CASES CITED: Jones v Bartlett (2000) 75 ALJR 1, 176 ALR 137 Northern Sandblasting Pty Limited v Harris (1997) 188 CLR 313 Phillis v Daly (1988) 15 NSWLR 65 DECISION : Appeal dismissed with costs.

THE SUPREME COURT

OF NEW SOUTH WALES

COURT OF APPEAL

CA 40889/00 DC 3994/98

HEYDON JA IPP AJA ROLFE AJA

Tuesday, 19 June 2001

TABER v NSW LAND & HOUSING CORPORATION Negligence - Duty of Care - Causation - Personal Injury - Leased premises - whether failure to install handrail on uneven stairs constituted breach of duty - whether failure to install a handrail on stairs was causative of the injury suffered.

The appellant was carrying a basket of laundry down a set of four steps at the back of the house she was renting from the respondent housing authority when she overstepped the bottom step, fracturing her ankle. The appellant sued the respondent in negligence, alleging that the respondent owed her a duty of care to provide safe steps. The appellant claimed that the stairs were unsafe because they did not comply with the building code in terms of consistency of depth as between the steps, and no handrail was in place. The appellant relied in particular on a number of factors. The respondent knew of the medical condition which caused the appellant difficulty in climbing steps. The appellant had, before her accident, requested that a handrail be installed, and a handrail had previously been in place on the steps.