Selby v Bankstown City Council [2013] NSWDC 84

Selby v Bankstown City Council [2013] NSWDC 84

The plaintiff failed to establish negligence because, although a trip on the footpath was generally foreseeable and the Council had earlier notice of uneven pavers in the area, the plaintiff did not prove that the defendant had actual knowledge of the particular 3mm raised paver that caused her fall. The raise was slight, the probability of harm was very low, the Council's allocation of inspection and repair resources was not shown to be unreasonable, and the defendant was entitled to the protection of s 45(1) of the Civil Liability Act 2002. The Court also found that the risk was obvious to a reasonable person in the plaintiff's position, especially given her own knowledge that the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Negligence Claim Arising From an Alleged Trip and Fall on a Footpath / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Verdict and judgment for the defendant.
Legal Topics
['footpath Trip and Fall' 'obvious Risk' 'public Authority Liability' 'road Authority Immunity' 'breach of Duty of Care' 'contributory Negligence' 'assessment of Personal Injury Damages']
['torts' 'negligence' "occupier's Liability" 'civil Liability' 'damages'] ['footpath Trip and Fall' 'obvious Risk' 'public Authority Liability' 'road Authority Immunity' 'breach of Duty of Care' 'contributory Negligence' 'assessment of Personal Injury Damages']

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

Personal Injury Negligence Claim Arising From an Alleged Trip and Fall on a Footpath / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Identification of the circumstances of the plaintiff's injury" 'Whether the injury sustained by the plaintiff was due to the materialisation of an obvious risk' 'Whether the defendant was in breach of the duty of care it owed to the plaintiff, and whether as a public utility, the defendant had defences available to it pursuant to Pt 5 of the Civil Liability Act 2002' 'Whether there was contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff, and if so, to what extent' "Assessment of the plaintiff's damages"]

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to establish negligence because, although a trip on the footpath was generally foreseeable and the Council had earlier notice of uneven pavers in the area, the plaintiff did not prove that the defendant had actual knowledge of the particular 3mm raised paver that caused her fall. The raise was slight, the probability of harm was very low, the Council's allocation of inspection and repair resources was not shown to be unreasonable, and the defendant was entitled to the protection of s 45(1) of the Civil Liability Act 2002. The Court also found that the risk was obvious to a reasonable person in the plaintiff's position, especially given her own knowledge that the...

Court Disposition

Verdict and judgment for the defendant.

Orders

  • ['Verdict and judgment for the defendant' "The plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs of the proceedings on the ordinary basis unless otherwise ordered" 'The exhibits may be returned' 'Liberty to apply on 7 days notice if further orders are required']