D.Ostojic, E. Wehbe, K.Tsimigos, P. Samaha, A.

Allouche

Throughout Tyrone and Gus’ case it is evident that an act of negligence was performed by both
individuals but each to a different degree. Although Gus’ level of intoxication was a contributing
factor to his injury, Tyrone is also liable as he breached his duty of care by failing to provide
adequate safety measures for his guests. The Lord Atkins 'neighbor’ principle supports this idea
as Tyrone owed Gus a duty of care to avoid his foreseeable injury.

The legal issues that arise within the scenario between both the plaintiff and the defendant
recognise that the accurate standard of care was not implemented for Gus. It is shown that the
defendant, Tyrone owes Gus a duty of care towards the injury that Gus has faced at Tyrone’s
house. In order for the standard of care to be used in favor of Gus, he must be able to prove
that the defendant neglected the standard of care required by law for him to be responsible for
the safety of his visitors. Through the reasonably foreseeable harm towards the plaintiff it is
seen that Gus’ injuries could have been avoided if safety precautions were conducted. This
could include installing handrails on the steps before inviting guests over. This also highlights
the idea of the Lord Atkins principle which states that “whatever a person is doing, they owe a
duty of care to those people they can reasonably foresee as likely to be affected by their
conduct”. Although Gus was intoxicated, Tyrone has the responsibility of ensuring everyone who
enters his private property remains safe.

The plaintiff, Gus, can establish his case by proving that Tyrone committed a tort of negligence
towards him. As Tyrone is the occupier of the premises he is the individual who is solely liable
for any injuries caused on his property. Tyrone breached his duty of care to his friend Gus who
has suffered severely from the negligence leading to Gus having the ability to establish a strong
case against him. This is solidified by the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 which states that “the
duty of care by an occupier of premises or land towards visitors on those premises.” This Act
states that Tyrone has the liability as he is the owner of the house and therefore should ensure
there are no identifiable risks for visitors. In relation to Tyrone and Gus’ situation the rigid
surface of the sandstone steps without the support of a handrail can foreseeably create an
unstable surface for an individual. As well as not having a clear visualisation of the whole
backyard can create more opportunities for visitors to Tyrone’s private property to become
injured. The Civil Liability Act 2002 Part 1A Division 2 Section 5B 1 identifies that “A person is
not negligent in failing to take precautions against a risk of harm unless: (a) the risk was
foreseeable ”. Although Gus didn't take precautions due to being intoxicated, he is not liable to
ensure that the house is safe for visitors when coming to Tyrone’s house. Therefore according
D.Ostojic, E. Wehbe, K.Tsimigos, P. Samaha, A. Allouche

to the Civil liability Act, Gus is not negligent even though he did not take precaution as it isn’t his
duty of care.

Tyrone is also able to establish a defending case against Gus as although all three elements of
the tort of negligence have been identified by the plaintiff, the defendant can still avoid liability. It
is evident that Gus has contributed to the negligence of his injury which is known as contributory
negligence. This refers to the plaintiff contributing in some way to their own injury. Contributory
negligence on the side of the plaintiff can even lead to the plaintiff being found entirely
responsible for their own loss or harm. As Gus collected the Golf ball’s with only one hand, the
risk was foreseeable as he wasn’t going to be able to carry all five golf balls with one hand,
therefore he became negligent to his own safety due to not correctly performing the task. If Gus
had not been negligent and collected the golf balls with both hands it would have eliminated any
future safety issues. Tyrone can also establish that the plaintiff was fully aware of the risk at the
time the harm was caused, this is known as voluntary assumption of risk which allows Tyrone to
be relieved of all liability. As the plaintiff Gus has full knowledge of the risk that an extensive
consumption of alcohol can cause although he is seen to have freely and willingly agreed to the
risk that could occur.

As a result, Gus can argue his case through the Civil Liability Act which supports his claim
against Tyrone, deeming him fully reliable for his injuries. Tyrone however, can argue his case
as the defendant that Gus is liable as the risk was foreseeable to the plaintiff. With all the
aspects of this case considered, it is evident that Tyrone owed a duty of care to his guests.
Despite Gus being intoxicated, Tyrone, who was aware of the surrounding risks, failed to
provide a handrail on the sandstone steps, a well lit grass area and secure surroundings.

Reference list:

James, N. (2016) Business Law. 6th ed. Milton, QLD, Australia: John Wiley & Sons.