Opening Statement
This is the hearing of Dunn and Bridges, in which the plaintiff must prove on the balance of probabilities that: 1. The defendant was the occupier of the premises. 2. On 10 October 2012 Dr Bridges held a party at 19 Castlecrag St Woollahra for his young child, Max Dunn and friends. 3. The plaintiff attended the party 4. The plaintiff was pushed into the pool by another guest 5. The plaintiff was concussed and has nerve damage to his neck as a result of his fall 6. The defendant owed a duty of car to the guests at the party, including the plaintiff
The plaintiff will state that the defendant acted with negligence, as she failed to uphold a duty of care, and the incident occurred as a result of her lack of duty of care.
The defendant is of the opinion that the Plaintiff did in fact act with negligence, and thus will attempt to prove that the:
* Defendant knew or should have known that alcohol would be consumed at the party. * Defendant knew or should have known of the possibility of injury arising out of adolescents drinking alcohol near a pool * The defendant allowed excessive alcohol consumption at the party. The defendant did not supervise the party * The defendant did not ensure the entrance to the pool was closed * As a result of the defendant’s breach of duty, the plaintiff suffered injuries.
The defence will prove on the balance of probabilities that the Defendant, Dr Bridges was not negligent and did up hold her Duty of Care as a responsible adult and parent. She acted with forethought and checked the safety of the guests under her supervision on numerous occasions. Thus stating the incident did not occur at the fault of the defendant.
The witnesses for the plaintiff are/were Tony Dunn, the victim of the incident and Charlie Silva.
The witnesses for the defence are Dr Bridges, the owner of the premises and Max Bridges, daughter of Dr Bridges. Today you will hear from both of our witnesses that on
The plaintiff will state that the defendant acted with negligence, as she failed to uphold a duty of care, and the incident occurred as a result of her lack of duty of care.
The defendant is of the opinion that the Plaintiff did in fact act with negligence, and thus will attempt to prove that the:
* Defendant knew or should have known that alcohol would be consumed at the party. * Defendant knew or should have known of the possibility of injury arising out of adolescents drinking alcohol near a pool * The defendant allowed excessive alcohol consumption at the party. The defendant did not supervise the party * The defendant did not ensure the entrance to the pool was closed * As a result of the defendant’s breach of duty, the plaintiff suffered injuries.
The defence will prove on the balance of probabilities that the Defendant, Dr Bridges was not negligent and did up hold her Duty of Care as a responsible adult and parent. She acted with forethought and checked the safety of the guests under her supervision on numerous occasions. Thus stating the incident did not occur at the fault of the defendant.
The witnesses for the plaintiff are/were Tony Dunn, the victim of the incident and Charlie Silva.
The witnesses for the defence are Dr Bridges, the owner of the premises and Max Bridges, daughter of Dr Bridges. Today you will hear from both of our witnesses that on