Garzo v Liverpool / Campbelltown Christian School. [2012] NSWCA 151

Garzo v Liverpool / Campbelltown Christian School. [2012] NSWCA 151

The appeal was dismissed. Basten JA held that no breach of duty was demonstrated because the evidence did not establish that the crossing was unduly slippery at the date of the fall or that professional testing before the accident would have revealed a need for resurfacing. Meagher JA and Tobias AJA considered that the respondents breached their duties when repainting the crossing with paint not shown to meet the HB 197:1999 recommendation when newly applied, but held that the appellant failed to prove factual causation because by November 2007 the surface had worn or weathered so that any non-compliance was insignificant and was not shown to be a necessary condition of her fall.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Negligence Appeal / Appeal From Garling J in the Supreme Court of New South Wales
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['slip and Fall on Pedestrian Crossing' 'duty of Care' 'breach of Duty' 'reasonable Precautions' 'foreseeability' 'risk of Harm' 'causation' 'civil Liability Act 2002 (nsw) Ss 5 B and 5 D']
['torts' 'negligence'] ['slip and Fall on Pedestrian Crossing' 'duty of Care' 'breach of Duty' 'reasonable Precautions' 'foreseeability' 'risk of Harm' 'causation' 'civil Liability Act 2002 (nsw) Ss 5 B and 5 D']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Negligence Appeal / Appeal From Garling J in the Supreme Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the primary judge erred in concluding that the respondents were not negligent after the appellant slipped and fell on a painted strip of a pedestrian crossing within school grounds.' "Whether the respondents reasonably ought to have known that the crossing was unduly slippery on the date of the appellant's fall." 'Whether the respondents breached their duties of care by failing to repaint the pedestrian crossing using paint capable of producing slip resistant results when tested in wet conditions.' 'Whether the risk of harm to a person slipping on the wet surface of the crossing was foreseeable and not insignificant under s 5B of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW).' "Whether any breach of duty was a necessary condition of the occurrence of the appellant's injury under s 5D of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed. Basten JA held that no breach of duty was demonstrated because the evidence did not establish that the crossing was unduly slippery at the date of the fall or that professional testing before the accident would have revealed a need for resurfacing. Meagher JA and Tobias AJA considered that the respondents breached their duties when repainting the crossing with paint not shown to meet the HB 197:1999 recommendation when newly applied, but held that the appellant failed to prove factual causation because by November 2007 the surface had worn or weathered so that any non-compliance was insignificant and was not shown to be a necessary condition of her fall.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed with costs.' "The appellant must pay the respondents' costs."]