Essay on Legt 1710 Assignment 1

1255 Words Sep 24th, 2012 6 Pages
A: What is the full case citation?
The full case citation is Novakovic v Stekovic [2012] NSWCA 54

B: (1) what are the names of the parties?
The names of the parties are the appellant and the respondents.
(2) Who is the ‘appellant’? Who is the ‘respondent’?
In this case, the appellant is Mileva Novakovic and the respondents are Michael Stekovic and Snezana Stekovic.
(3) Please explain why the parties are not referred to as the ‘plaintiff’ and the ‘defendant’?
Parties are called as the plaintiff and defendant when it is the first hearing of a case. In this case it is not an original case but had been appealed. Hence the two parties would be appellant and respondents. In addition, during the appeal case, the party which against
…show more content…
Therefore the respondents should not take responsible for the injury. (2) What was the decision in the case?
The judge dismisses the appeal with costs. He fully supports the judgment made by the magistrate McColl JA: The potential risk of harm is unforeseeable by the respondents and the appellant’s injury is due to the intense action she took not because the dog was sitting in the lounge. The appellant had not established that the risk of injury was foreseeable.
(3) Identify and explain the main legal issue
The main legal issue covered in the Novakovic v Stekovic case is the tort of negligence followed with personal injury. In the appellant’s point of view, according to the Civil Liability Acts 2002 (NSW) the recognized duties of care include (7): the occupiers to visitors, tenants, even trespassers.(1) Hence the respondents must precaution all the potential risk which may cause injury to the visitors in their premises. For this point, the respondents admitted at trial that they owed the appellant a duty of care to take reasonable steps to avoid a foreseeable risk of injury. So the issue followed up is: Did Michael Stekovic and Snezana Stekovic breach their duty of care?

To find out whether the respondents breach their duty of care or not, it turns on 5B of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) which provides that: A person is not unless the risk was foreseeable or the risk was not insignificant or a reasonable person in the person’s position would have

More about Essay on Legt 1710 Assignment 1

Open Document