Angus v Stevenson [2002] NSWCA 296

New South Wales Court of Appeal

CITATION : Angus v Stevenson [2002] NSWCA 296 FILE NUMBER(S) : CA 41014/01 HEARING DATE(S) : 30 August 2002 JUDGMENT DATE : 30 August 2002

PARTIES : Michael Joseph ANGUS (Appellant) Troy Ashley STEVENSON (Respondent) JUDGMENT OF : Hodgson JA at 1; Santow JA at 8; Gzell J at 32

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : District Court LOWER COURT DC 103/00 FILE NUMBER(S) : LOWER COURT Herron DCJ JUDICIAL OFFICER :

COUNSEL : D S Weinberger (Appellant) G R Petty, SC/ P R Cummings (Respondent) SOLICITORS : Gadens Lawyers (Appellant) Marshall & Partners (Respondent) CATCHWORDS : NEGLIGENCE - occupier's liability - causation - glasses overcrowded on tables - risk that glass on such tables may fall to the floor - glass on dance floor - plaintiff fell on glass causing injury - absence of proper and safe system for collection of empty glasses - inadequate implementation of system to collect glasses. Chordas v Bryant (Wellington) Pty Ltd (1998) 20 FCR 91 CASES CITED: Guildford Rugby League Football and Recreational Club v Coad (2001) ATR 81-263 Kingrom Pty Ltd v Sawka (NSWCA, 8 July 1996, unreported) DECISION : Appeal dismissed with costs.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL CA 41014/01 DC 103/00

HODGSON JA SANTOW JA GZELL J

30 AUGUST 2002 Michael Joseph ANGUS -v- Troy Ashley STEVENSON Judgment - ex tempore 1 HODGSON JA: I agree with Santow JA. 2 The Respondent gave evidence that there were a number of tables in the vicinity of the dance floor with glasses on them, that one apart from his own had "plenty of glasses" on it, and also that his own table was so overcrowded with glasses that he had difficulty finding a space on it to place his own glass. The Trial Judge accepted that evidence. He also found that the Appellant's system for collecting glasses was inadequate. 3 Insofar as the Appellant challenged those findings, in my opinion there was no good basis for that challenge. 4 The most substantial challenge was to the issue of causation. The Trial Judge near the commencement of his judgment commented that the glass had been inadvertently left at the edge of the dance floor. However, later on he said it may have fallen from one or other of the tables. I accept the Appellant's submission that, if the glass was left at the edge of the dance floor as the result of a casual act unconnected with the overcrowding of tables, then causation would not have been established. 5 However, although the primary judge did not expressly say this, there was a clear inference available that just as the Respondent's table was overcrowded with glasses, so were other tables in the vicinity of the dance floor, and that this situation gave rise to a risk that one or more of the glasses would end up on the floor and thus be a hazard to the dancers. 6 In my opinion also, an inference was available that the glass on which the Respondent was injured came from this source and was a realisation of this risk, either because it fell off an overcrowded table or was placed there because there was no room on the tables, that is, that the glass was not there due to its being left there for a reason unconnected with the overcrowding of the tables. 7 Although the Trial Judge's judgment could have better drawn attention to these matters, I think this was the true basis of the judgment and on that basis the judgment, should be upheld and the appeal dismissed.