The High Court decision in Hoyts Pty Limited –v- Burns decided an appeal which turned on the existence and efficacy or lack thereof, of warning signs. The Plaintiff fell and injured herself at a cinema when she tried to sit back in a seat which retracted as soon as she stood upright. She failed at first instance but succeeded in the Court of Appeal. The High Court restored the original verdict, on the basis the Plaintiff’s conduct would not have been any different had a warning sign been erected putting her on notice of the way in which the seats retracted. The decision is useful because Justice Kirby set out criteria relevant to the obligation to provide a warning notice.
These include:
- Whether the occupier has an economic interest in the entry of the Plaintiff;
- Whether because of previous incidents or otherwise the occupier knew or ought to have known of the risk;
- Whether the risk was concealed or not plain to an ordinary entrant which might have called for a warning;
- The likely consequences if the risk materialised;
- Whether the imposition of a requirement to give notice would have large cost (or other) implications; and
- Whether the nature of the activity rendered the presence of a sign irrelevant to the actual prevention of injury.
The decision is Hoyts Pty Limited –v- Burns 9 October 2003 and can be found at www.austlii.edu.au
|
Back