What happened
On 17 December 2019, Devic was pushing a pram and walking with her children from a shopping centre exit towards a car park crossing. After moving left to let another customer pass, she stepped onto the sloping side of an attached kerb ramp, expecting a level surface, and fell. CCTV did not show the moment of the fall, but the occupier did not challenge her account of its mechanism.
The issues
The dispute concerned whether using yellow on both the kerb and crossing obscured the height difference, requiring contrasting paint or a barrier. Competing expert reports raised the ramp's compliance with Australian Standards, the visual cues shown in photographs and the occupier's duty to warn of an obvious risk.
The court's decision
Judgment was entered for the occupier because the existing markings were adequate and the proposed additional precautions were not reasonably required. The risk was also obvious, removing the duty to warn, although the Court distinguished a physical barrier from a warning. It made no finding of contributory negligence and ordered ordinary costs against Devic, subject to a party establishing entitlement to a different costs order.
What this case shows
An inexpensive measure that could have prevented a fall does not by itself establish that reasonable care required it. The decision examines what the pedestrian could see and treats compliance with a technical standard as relevant evidence rather than a complete answer to negligence.
Why another case may differ
The findings depend on daylight, the condition of the markings, the ramp's geometry and the photographic evidence. A concealed change in level or different lighting and markings could require a different assessment. The later damages calculation was contingent on the liability decision being wrong and was not an award to Devic.
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? →