Analysis
Relevant Law
- Initial Ruling: Individual far more vulnerable in a 'dark environment'
- Appeal, Mulligan J states:
- Lack of lighting did not contribute to the risk of injury to the respondent.
- Ruling established by Dixon J, in Leurs by lack of 'special circumstances'
- Prior consideration must have been given from previous damages, although the assailants were ruled that the lighting did not influence their decision to attack the respondent.
Rules
Causation
- plaintiff. judge stated "a clear connection amounts to Causation.
Appellant Defenses:
- Provide a reasonable and safe workplace, does not extend to actions of third parties.
- How reasonably foreseeable are criminal actions?
- Not possible to eliminate entirely.
-there was a clear connection between the safe guard of the lighting of the common area being denied to the
Civil Liability Act 1936
- Negligence
- Causation: There is a clear connection between safe guard of lighting and the attack
- Duty of care - Reasonable to protect against third party actions?
- Lights? Cameras?
- Reasonable care provides to protect those lawfully on the land against criminal acts of third parties
Conclusion:
- Negligence case
- Final ruling
Issues:
Appellant:
The owner of Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre "The Centre"
Plaintiff/Respondent:
An employee of Focus Video Pty Ltd (Anzil)
Established duty of care in an carpark?
- FACTS:
- Focus video leased premises next to row of ATM machines
- Carpark extremely dark at night without lights
- Shop closed at 10pm, respondent attacked at 10:30pm
- Lighting in the carpark 'was provided at the discretion of the appellant'
Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre v Anzil
(23 November 2000)