Please upgrade your web browser as Internet Explorer 6 is no longer supported. Upgrade to IE8 or Install Firefox.

Sydney
Level 6, 1 Castlereagh St, Sydney
1800 25 1800

Parramatta
Ground Floor, 30 Cowper St, Parramatta
1800 25 1800

Liverpool
Suite 9, Level 2,
215-219 George St, Liverpool
1800 25 1800

Newcastle
83 King Street, Newcastle
1800 13 1800

Canberra
43-49 Geils Crt, Deakin
1800 23 1800

Wollongong
Level 1, 1 Burrelli Street, Wollongong
1800 25 1800

THOSE ACCIDENTS INSIDE THE FOUR WALLS OF THE CASTLE


The old adage that a man's home is his Castle has no application when it comes to compensation law in Australia. We are frequently seeing compensation claims being brought by visitors to properties who suffer injuries in circumstances where the court would say the occupy or owner of the property holds legal responsibility.

Briefly, the Court has held that the owner of a premise must take reasonable care to avoid the risk of injury to visitors who come onto the property. What is reasonable, of course, will vary with the circumstances of that visitor's entry upon the premises. The visitor will need to prove that there was a reasonable foresee ability of a real risk of injury to the visitor or to the class of persons of which the visitor is a member before he or she is able to recover compensation.

They are 2 classes of cases in this area:
  • Those cases where a dangerous situation may arise on the property caused by the owners positive action or omission. Cases in this category include claims by a visitor who suffered an electric shock when she touched a faulty electrical appliance; a visitor who suffered lacerations when a shower screen fractured and it was later learned that it was not constructed of safety glass; an attack by the family dog on a visitor causing injuries; and falls or slips on surfaces or in holes which were instructed by the owner.

  • Those cases where the work was carried out by an independent contractor for which the law imposes responsibility on the owner or occupier. These cases are more difficult to predict as it is often the case that the parties in these case will blame each other for the dangerous situation which may have arisen. Let me give you some examples: a tenant sued the owner of property for injuries sustained when he suffered an electric shock when he touched part of the plumbing. The landlord had arranged for a qualified electrician to carry out some electrical work and it turned out that the electrician had incorrectly connected a live wire to the earth. The electrician was clearly at fault however he did not have any insurance. The tenant took action against the landlord and was successful in recovering an award of compensation for the injuries he suffered. In another case a young boy suffered serious injuries when the bike he was riding on a footpath crashed into an excavated driveway which was being constructed for the landowner. The builder had failed to erect the usual signs or warning fences around the excavation. Clearly it was the fault of the builder and yet the landowner was held liable.

  • The relevance of home owners public liability insurance cannot be overlooked. An insured defendant is always more likely to be the target of litigation. Everyone should check their homeowners insurance to make sure it provides adequate cover in these types of cases.
The relevance of home owners public liability insurance cannot be overlooked. An insured defendant is always more likely to be the target of litigation. Everyone should check their homeowners insurance to make sure it provides adequate cover in these types of cases.No longer can we rest assured sitting in the comfort of our Castle and believe that people who injure themselves when they come onto our property do so at their own risk. We owe a duty to anyone who comes on the property although the standard on the duty will depend on the category of the invitee. That is to say we may owe a very low duty of care to trespassers (and for example it is quite clear that we can no longer set traps to potentially injure trespassers), while we would be expected to take much more care to protect people we invite onto the property (such as tenants and friends who we invite specifically onto the property) from dangerous situations.


DISCLAIMER

These personal injury law articles were published with the express permission of Stacks/The Law Firm. Please note that the information was correct at the time of publication, but personal injury law is subject to legislation changes from time to time and thus it is recommended that you contact a Stacks/Goudkamp lawyer should you have any questions relating to any of the topics above.

If you are in need of legal advice, contact Stacks/Goudkamp today. Stacks/Goudkamp is a Sydney based law firm with Accredited Specialists in Personal Injury Law and Compensation matters. We are situated in the heart of the Sydney CBD and also have offices in Parramatta, Liverpool, Newcastle, Wollongong and Canberra. Call us today on 1800 25 1800 or alternatively, fill out the form on the right.

Name:
Email:
Phone:
Please enter your postcode:
Which office would suit you best?
When did the accident happen?
Do you have legal representation?
Any other information you'd like us to know before we contact you?

11/08/2010 | WHO IS THE ‘NOMINAL DEFENDANT’?  What happens if you fall foul of someone else's bad driving on the roads but can’t identify the person responsible...

29/07/2010 | STATE REFUSES TO FUND MARALINGA COURT BATTLE  The Rann government in South Australia has refused to meet with representatives of Aboriginal people affected by British nuclear tests...

23/07/2010 | $7.5M FOR HIT-RUN TEEN GEORGINA WOODS  She hates school, dreams of being a veterinarian & loves her family pets. Georgina Woods' mum Julie describes her 13-year-old as a typical teenager, except every day is a struggle since a cowardly hit-&-run driver left Georgina for dead...