Legt 1710 Assignment 1 Essay

1256 Words Oct 8th, 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…
In this case the ‘trigger event’ was a dog stay in lounge (didn’t bark or running) which cause the appellant to slip and fell. The issue now moves to is a dog stay in house a reasonable foreseeability of risk?

(1) Latimer P Australian Business Law, 31st ed, 2012, ¶4-090 Recognised duties of care. P231 (2) Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) s 5B (1) (2)
As appellant said it is very danger for an untied dog stay in the house. However according to the Division 2.6 45 Domestic Animals Act 2000: The keeper of a dog must not be on private premises with a dog that is not restrained by a leash unless the keeper has the consent of the occupier of the premises.(3) In this case the keeper is the occupier of the premises hence it is not necessarily to restrain the dog all the time in the house. When the appellant entered the room the dog just got up, it didn’t attacking or harassing any people in the house. It is reasonable for the respondents were of the view that the dog posed no risk to entrants in such a situation. Hence the respondents cannot foresee that an entrant might have a general fear of dogs and confining the inquiry to appellant. As indicated above, the 5B Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) cannot be hold, for this reason the respondents are not negligent in failing to take any precautions against an unforeseeable harmful risk

Nevertheless, the most important point which is point out by both

Related Documents