BARRY.NILSSON. Lawyers

Anderson v Gold Coast City Council [2008] QDC 126

THE FACTS

On 14 October 2000 the plaintiff tripped and fell on the lid of a service pit, located adjacent to a concrete footpath. The service pit's lid was raised approximately one inch above the ground. The plaintiff fell on a bright, sunny day when there was nothing to prevent her from seeing the raised lip of the service pit.

There was evidence that a letter had been sent to a Councillor several weeks prior to the plaintiff's incident, complaining about the state of the footpath generally.

The plaintiff made several allegations of negligence against the Council, including a failure to maintain the ground around the service pit so as not to cause a risk of injury and failing to detect the risk caused by the protruding service pit.

THE DECISION AT TRIAL

The plaintiff's claim was heard in the Magistrates Court. Although finding the plaintiff to be a generally unreliable witness, the Magistrate accepted that the sole cause of her fall was the exposed lid. However, the Magistrate held that there was no duty to eliminate the lip and that, even had there been one, the duty would not have been breached. In reaching this conclusion, the Magistrate thought it was relevant that the plaintiff lived in the area and was familiar with the service pit.

THE DECISION ON APPEAL

On appeal to the District Court, the plaintiff argued that the Magistrate had erred in focussing on her personal knowledge of the area. The plaintiff argued that any duty of care was owed to her as a member of a class, that being pedestrians exercising reasonable care for their own safety. She therefore argued that her personal circumstances were irrelevant to the formulation of the duty of care.

While accepting that the Magistrate may have erred in focussing on the plaintiff's personal characteristics, the District Court did not consider that it affected the conclusion on liability. The Court could not accept that a one-inch lip presented a reasonably foreseeable risk to pedestrians exercising reasonable care for their own safety. Any risk was minor and obvious. The Court emphasised that service pits are a feature normally encountered by pedestrians, especially those who choose to leave the formed footpath and traverse uneven ground.

The District Court then considered whether, if there had been a duty of care, that duty would have been breached. Council had a system for inspecting footpaths and it appeared that the system was functioning properly. The relevant footpath had last been inspected 11 months earlier and no defects were noted. The relatively long time between inspections was due to the fact that the footpath, though near a commercial area, had not been assessed as falling within the high priority CBD area. The District Court accepted that this inspection regime was reasonable.

The District Court's conclusion was not affected by the letter sent three weeks before the plaintiff's fall. Although the letter complained about the condition of the footpath, it did not raise any specific concerns about its safety or mention to presence of exposed service pit lids. As the letter had been sent to an individual Councillor, rather than to the body within Council responsible for footpaths, it was unclear when Council itself had knowledge of the complaint. Even had the appropriate body received the letter before the plaintiff's incident, the District Court emphasised that the Council would have been required only to take reasonable steps within a reasonable period of time. It did not accept that this would require the Council to remedy the defect within three days, as the plaintiff had argued.

The plaintiff's appeal was dismissed.

CONCLUSIONS

This decision highlights the necessity to take a multifactorial approach when assessing liability for footpath trip and fall cases. Relevant factors will include the footpath's location, the frequency of inspections, the lighting conditions and the plaintiff's conduct.

This case does suggest that the plaintiff's personal circumstances, such as their knowledge of the incident location, are not directly relevant to the existence of a duty of care. However, we consider that the plaintiff's knowledge of the area could still be relevant to the assessment of contributory negligence.

It is worth noting that the plaintiff's accident occurred in October 2000. As such, the Civil Liability Act 2003 did not apply to the claim and there was no need to consider the application of the sections relevant to local authorities. We do not expect that the result would have been different under the Civil Liability Act 2003.

Queensland District Court: 13 June 2008

For further information on this topic, please contact:

• Peter Murdoch
• Insurance & Health
• Property & Commercial
• Family Law