Landlord's worst nightmare

Tenant wins $1.2m for carpet trip
By Mark Oberhardt
June 27, 2003

A WOMAN who injured her back when she tripped on a hole in a carpet sued her landlady won $1.2 million in damages yesterday.

The Supreme Court in Brisbane was told Donna Maree Muir, now 45, had fallen in the hallway of a house in Gamenya Drive, Chatswood Hills, in December 1990.

She had landed on the bathroom floor, and sustained a serious injury.

Muir sued the owner of the rented house, Marion Gail Hume, claiming her injuries were caused by Hume's or her agents' failure to take reasonable care for Muir's safety.

She claimed that the carpet had been allowed to remain in a dangerous state, that it had not been repaired after requests to do so, and that no interim measures had been taken to ensure that the carpet could not be tripped over.

Hume's lawyers disputed the claims and also claimed that Muir had caused, or substantially contributed to, her own injury by failing to keep a proper lookout.

The court was given varying accounts of the size of the hole in the carpet, ranging from 15cm to 45cm in width.

A mat had been covering the hole, but was being aired at the time Muir tripped and fell.

Justice John Helman found that, by failing to replace or repair the hall carpet at the entrance to the bathroom, Hume had failed to provide and maintain the house in good tenable repair. He said Hume had therefore exposed Muir to a risk of injury.

Justice Helman said Hume's breaches of duty had resulted in Muir's fall and the serious injury she suffered.

He noted that Muir had continued to have chronic back pain and from time to time had been admitted to various hospitals.

Muir, a qualified secretary, had been unable to work because of the continuing pain caused by her injury since 1991.

Justice Helman assessed damages which included $450,000 for past and future care, $220,000 for loss of future earnings, $147,799 in interest, and $93,852 in special damages.

He gave judgment for Muir against Hume in the sum of $1,248,402.

The Courier-Mail
 
Unfortunately I suspect that these sorts of stories will appear more and more often, and stand as a good warning to all landlords not to be too frugal when it comes to the maintenance and repairs of their properties.
 
And if big payouts continue it could evolve into a tactic used by tenants to earn money.....how long a period has to lapse between a tenant informing the PM of an issue and its resolution?

What if the tenant claims they told the PM and have a copy of a letter they claim they sent to the PM, but are lying?

What if tradies are really busy at the time & the PM can't get one out for two weeks?

More reasons for ensuring you have your insurance in order & at a sufficient amount!

Cheers,

Aceyducey
 
Wavy.. Thanks for taking the time to post that.. Much appreciated.

Does anyone have any thoughts on what the Insurance position would have been for the Landlord? What kind of policy would have covered this? Would the policy have been invalidated by the Landlords inaction in getting the repair done?

Thanks, Duncan.
 
I assume that these landlord's public liability policies will pay the claim even if the landlord is clearly 100% negligent... right?

Otherwise, what's the point of having a PL policy? Obviously for any damages judgement to be awarded against the landlord in the first place, the court must have held that the landlord was negligent.

If the insurer could deny the claim by saying that the landlord was negligent, then it would NEVER have to pay a claim, because if the landlord hadn't been found legally negligent by the court then there would have been no damages award in the first place.

How does this work? Do Public Liability insurance companies generally pay claims when the landlord is clearly negligent? If not, what's the value of having a PL policy if they won't pay if you get sued?
 
Acey said.....
"What if the tenant claims they told the PM and have a copy of a letter they claim they sent to the PM, but are lying?"

-------------------------------

The thing about civil law (which this is) is that "he who asserts must prove".....in other words, the plaintiff is bringing the case and must therefore make the case - provide all the necessary evidence etc.

The defendant (the landlord in this instance) must rebut the evidence. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff., The standard of proof is "on the balance of probablitities" not the strict standard of proof in criminal law of "beyond reasonable doubt"


I bet this case goes to appeal..........

I will watch the austlii website and post a link to the case when (if) it comes up so that those here who are interested can read it and find out why the judge found for the plaintiff.
 
Originally posted by Alex_1
I assume that these landlord's public liability policies will pay the claim even if the landlord is clearly 100% negligent... right?


not always some companies will take you to court to state you are negligent so that they do not have to pay out...

l did computer work for a law firm that does just that. Infact they know before the case goes to court how much they may lose and how much % they will pay..
 
How did the judge know that the injury resulted from a hole in the carpet? The tenant might have injuried herself due to other causes or somewhere else. Can the judge rule out scenario such as: the tenant fell in the bathroom after a bottle of shampoo/hand wash liquid spilled out. We can't install cameras in IPs like Casino or other public places, can we? I still remembered one old man tried to seek compensation from a Casino but failed - the Casino got a video to prove that the man tripped himself.
 
Last edited:
My wife works for Westfield and they have cases where people purposely go out of their way to be elligible to make claims. I heard of one where the person actually put the ice cream on the floor and then said she slipped on it. Security cameras were her downfall.

It's getting worse, and as more people hear about ridiculous cases such as this it won't get any better.

Kev

www.nundahrealestate.com.au
 
There is no way to get richer through the Lotto, but it's too easy to get richer through "slip & and fall" claim - even no need to "invest" a cent!! No case? No worry, these greedy solicitors will do whatever they can to make a case and to fool the judges.
 
Originally posted by Alex_1
I assume that these landlord's public liability policies will pay the claim even if the landlord is clearly 100% negligent... right?


That's the whole basis of liability. To be covered if you are negligent in some way and therefore proved to have contributed either fully or partially to the injury or damage.

The other issue that is pushing up insurance is those liability claims that are try-ons. There is no negligence and yet the insurer knows that if they deny outright, the plaintiff could take it further and the costs could be worse than settling. So they offer a "go away" settlement and can be quite successful.

As has been said elsewhere in the forum, setting up your IP's in a trust with a company as trustee could be the best insurance you ever pay. let your liability insurance cover you, but protect your assets in the best legal way possible.
 
Hi

Interesting discussion, particularly as several commentators have noted how prevalent this type of claim is becoming.

My query is that surely the strata managers come in to this somewhere.

For example if the hole was reported to the strata managers and they, seemingly in the best interests of the owners (& assuming the owners were not residents), were to prevaricate on the issue
then could they also be held liable ?

I've come across several strata managers who attempt to save money by "talking down" any need for repairs from the strata body.

[email protected]
 
Back
Top