Williams v Wollongong City Council [2020] NSWDC 564

Williams v Wollongong City Council [2020] NSWDC 564

The defendant breached its duty of care because a reasonable council in control of the Park would have taken precautions to provide adequate visual cues to the stepped pathway, at least by highlighting the step nosings or by installing tactile indicators and a handrail. The pathway led directly to the toilet...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Personal Injury Negligence Claim Under the Civil Liability Act 2002 (nsw) / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff. Damages are to be reduced by 15% for contributory negligence, with some components to be calculated by the parties consistently with the reasons.
Legal Topics
['fall From Stepped Pathway' "occupier's Liability" 'breach of Duty of Care' 'obvious Risk' 'causation' 'contributory Negligence' 'past Economic Loss' 'attendant Care Services' 'non Economic Loss']
['torts' 'negligence' 'personal Injury' 'civil Liability'] ['fall From Stepped Pathway' "occupier's Liability" 'breach of Duty of Care' 'obvious Risk' 'causation' 'contributory Negligence' 'past Economic Loss' 'attendant Care Services' 'non Economic Loss']

Source-derived case record

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

Civil Personal Injury Negligence Claim Under the Civil Liability Act 2002 (nsw) / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the defendant breached its duty of care to the plaintiff as an entrant to Mount Keira Summit Park by failing to provide adequate visual cues or other precautions for the stepped pathway leading to the toilet amenities.' 'Whether the risk of harm from the stepped pathway was an obvious risk under the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW).' "Whether the defendant's negligence caused the plaintiff's fall and injuries." 'Whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent.' 'What damages should be awarded for non-economic loss, past economic loss, out-of-pocket expenses, attendant care and related heads of damage.']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant breached its duty of care because a reasonable council in control of the Park would have taken precautions to provide adequate visual cues to the stepped pathway, at least by highlighting the step nosings or by installing tactile indicators and a handrail. The pathway led directly to the toilet amenities, including the disabled toilet, was the shortest route from the car park, was subject to shade, used similarly coloured pavers, and lacked sufficient visual cues despite handrails and tactile indicators being used elsewhere in the Park. The risk was foreseeable, not insignificant and not an obvious risk to a reasonable person in the plaintiff's position. The absence of...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff. Damages are to be reduced by 15% for contributory negligence, with some components to be calculated by the parties consistently with the reasons.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the plaintiff.' "The defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs as agreed or assessed." "The parties are to bring in agreed short minutes of order consistent with the court's reasons within 14 days." 'Any application to vary the costs order in order (2) above is to be made within 14 days.' "Any party...