Negligence Case Report: Commercial Law - Supreme Court NSW Observation

This report details a student's observation of a negligence case at the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The case involves Mr. Arthur (Appellant) versus Snowboard Resort (Respondent) concerning a skiing accident. The report summarizes the facts, including the appellant's alcohol consumption a...Read More

Running head: COMMMERCIAL LAW
COURT REPORT
NEGLIGENCE LAW
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1COMMMERCIAL LAW
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.

2COMMMERCIAL LAW
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

3COMMMERCIAL LAW
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

4COMMMERCIAL LAW
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 laws from the case.

5COMMMERCIAL LAW
Reference:
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:
http://www.supremecourt.justice.nsw.gov.au/ [Accessed 29 May 2018].