NAME: Supreme Court NSW
ADDRESS: 184 Philip St. Sydney NSW 2000 Australia
JUDGE: XYZ, J
TITLE: Negligence Case Report
PARTIES: Mr. Arthur (Appellant) v Snowboard Resort (Respondent)
[Hypothetical]
DATE: 29 May 2018
COUNSEL: A J L BANNON (APPELLANT)
W E JACOB (RESPONDENT)
CATCHWORD: PROCEDURE- Negligence claim by appellant-
Respondent has failed to take proper care- Appellant
Suffered injury- counterclaim made by respondent-
A claim for contributory negligence made- Evidences
Submitted- court’s observation
Summary of facts:
Appellant and two of his friends had made a trip to New South Wales for skiing. They had contacted with the respondent’s company. An annual carnival was going on and they had booked a day with certain discount. The ski ground was quite sloppy and it had a bad past history. However, appellant and two of his friends had participated in the race and they had paid registration fees. From the views and contentions of the witnesses of the case, it has been observed that appellant had consumed certain alcohol at the day of accident. When he had tried to enter into the race ground, the authority has asked him to leave the ground, as his condition was not good. However, he paid no heed to it, started to ski, and met with a serious accident. The preliminary court had held the appellant partly liable for the accident.
Facts of the case:
The main facts of the case are to determine whether the ski authority was negligent to take proper care of the appellant or not. Further, it is to be determined whether appellant was liable for his injuries or not.
People taking part:
In this case, there are certain witnesses had stated their opinions and respective advocates had submitted their evidences to make their position strong. Further, the report made by the police in this case has been submitted. The doctor who observed the injury of the appellant has also been introduced and the blood report of the appellant has been submitted.
Considering the facts of the case, it has been proved that appellant had consumed alcohol that fateful day and the bar tender had verified the fact. According to him, the appellant had consumed two large bottle of drink and was boozed off. Further, the entry staff of the respondent’s ski ground ensured the facts and CCTV footage has been produced. The medical test has proved the presence of alcohol in the blood of the appellant. On the other hand, certain deficiency has been found on the part of the respondent. The ski ground was an accident-prone zone and it had a history of accident. However, it has been observed from the evidences of appellant that the respondent had not taken any reasonable steps to avoid those problems. Further, they should not allow the appellant to participate in the race.
Adversarial nature:
A case has been known to be adversarial when the parties to the case have to prove their position and submit evidences for it. In this case, the counsels of both the parties have submitted their respective documents and the witnesses have been cross-examined by the counsels. From the facts of the case, it is quite clear that the appellant had certain contribution towards his injuries. The appellant counsel was trued to concentrate on the faults of the respondent and their failure to take positive steps to avoid any mishap. Mere negligence had been observed by the acts of the staffs who had failed to perform their duty of care by allowing the appellant while he was drunk. Further, the counsel of the respondent has concentrated on the facts that the appellant had all the assumption of risks that he may face accident in this condition and still he had chosen to participate in the event. The presiding officer of the case had observed all the views of the parties and listened to both the parties.
Difference in expectation:
It was my third court observation and there are certain loopholes observed by me regarding the case. Certain differences have been noticed in the contentions of the ski authority staff regarding the question why they have allowed the appellant in such condition. Further, the counsel for the appellant had failed to support his client with all the possible documents. The witnesses were also been examined in poor way.
Other observation:
The perfect atmosphere has added an extra feather in the crown and it represents the perfect legal stature to me. All the staffs of the courtroom were very helpful and I have learnt certain important facts and case law from the case.
References:
Cusimano, G.S. and Roberts, M.L., 2016. Contributory Negligence and Assumption of Risk. Alabama Tort Law, 1.
Grenier, J.H., Reffett, A., Simon, C.A. and Warne, R.C., 2017. Researching juror judgment and decision making in cases of alleged auditor negligence: A toolkit for new scholars. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 30(1), pp.99-110.
Levy, N.M., Golden, M.M. and Sacks, L., 2016. Comparative Negligence, Assumption of the Risk, and Related Defenses(Vol. 1). California Torts.
Supremecourt.justice.nsw.gov.au. (2018). NSW Supreme Court homepage. [online] Available at: https://www.supremecourt.justice.nsw.gov.au/ [Accessed 29 May 2018]
