What happened

On 29 August 2022, the plaintiff walked beside a doughnut pop-up at Eastgate Shopping Centre and, after turning its corner, caught her foot on a black-and-yellow services cover over a floor power connection. Two A-frame signs sat on the cover, but the structure obscured the hazard for pedestrians approaching from the south until they reached the corner. She sustained a distal left humerus fracture and was left with continuing elbow pain and restricted movement.

The issues

The issues were whether the occupier should reasonably have taken additional precautions against the foreseeable trip risk, whether the omissions factually caused the fall, and how far the plaintiff's failure to keep a lookout amounted to contributory negligence. Quantum also required the court to decide whether continuing elbow symptoms and arthritic change were accident-related and how to value a chance of future surgery and speculative recruitment commissions.

The court's decision

The court held that a reasonable occupier would have adopted at least one of three precautions: place the pop-up over the floor outlet, supply power from overhead, or add warnings visible before pedestrians reached the corner. Each would probably have prevented the fall. Because the cover and signs were conspicuous once the plaintiff rounded the corner and she was not looking in her direction of travel, damages of AUD 96,320 were reduced by 25%, producing judgment for AUD 72,240.

Understanding the figures

These are historical figures as at 23 February 2026. The court assessed AUD 64,320 for non-economic loss, AUD 1,000 for past out-of-pocket expenses, AUD 6,000 for future out-of-pocket expenses and AUD 25,000 for past economic loss, totalling AUD 96,320 before contributory negligence. After the 25% reduction, judgment was entered for AUD 72,240; costs were not then determined.

What this case shows

The decision shows that the mere presence of warning signs does not necessarily discharge an occupier's duty; timing and visibility from each realistic approach path matter. Where a temporary installation creates a blind corner, the court may compare practical, low-burden alternatives such as relocation, a different power supply, or earlier warnings.

Why another case may differ

The result turned on clear CCTV, the particular pop-up layout, the contrasting cover and signs, and evidence about feasible alternatives. The court rejected several proposed precautions, including a table, angled barriers and verbal warnings, because they could create another hazard or lacked demonstrated utility. AUD 72,240 was the trial judgment entered on 23 February 2026; costs were left for later directions.

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? →