What happened

In March 2017, the plaintiff stepped from bitumen onto a metal pit lid on the Bligh Street footpath in Sydney, fell and fractured his femur. Next-day observations, photographs, an earlier street image and expert testing supported findings of bowing, pooled water and reduced slip resistance. Optus admitted ownership and occupation of the lid and had accessed the pit repeatedly before the accident.

The issues

The dispute concerned whether the company's duty ended with safe installation or extended to inspection and maintenance. The court also had to decide when the deformation should have been detected and whether failure to replace the lid caused the fall under the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW).

The court's decision

The judge found that the bowing had existed since at least August 2014 and should have been noticed during repeated visits. The challenge to opportunity-based inspection itself failed, but leaving the bowed, slippery lid in service established breach and causation. With contributory negligence abandoned in final submissions, the plaintiff obtained judgment for AUD 156,026.19 and an order for costs.

Understanding the figures

The historical judgment was AUD 156,026.19, with costs separate. It included a single AUD 20,000 buffer for past and future economic loss. Past expenses differ by AUD 4 between [129] and the final table at [152]; the judgment total, consistent in the table and orders, is reported as stated.

What this case shows

Having a reasonable inspection system did not answer whether an observable defect should actually have been detected and remedied. The decision examined later deterioration and maintenance opportunities, alongside the carrier's statutory powers and safety obligations.

Why another case may differ

Liability did not follow merely because a metal lid was wet. Longstanding deformation, pooling, repeated access and specific slip evidence mattered, and a defect at initial installation was not proved. Inadequate earnings evidence also led to one buffer for past and future economic loss rather than a precise income calculation.

Applying it to your claim

Different facts, evidence or procedures, an appeal, or a change in the law may affect how this decision applies. This is general information, not a report of a case handled by Park & Co Lawyers.

Considering a second opinion? →