What happened
The respondent fell while approaching a house inspection after rain in January 2020. An owner had painted the driveway about a week earlier. The respondent slipped again and also observed an agent slip on the driveway; the trial judge awarded her damages.
The issues
The appeal focused on the rejection of an owner's evidence about the paint and findings that the appellants ought to have known of the risk. The amount of damages was not challenged.
The court's decision
The Court found no error in rejecting contradictory evidence denying repainting while asserting use of non-slip paint. The repeated slips and unchallenged expert evidence supported the finding that the wet driveway was dangerous. The appeal was dismissed with costs against the appellants.
Understanding the figures
The reasons record the trial damages as AUD 1,509,512. That amount was unchallenged and remained undisturbed on dismissal of the appeal; it was not a new or additional appellate award. Appeal costs were separate.
What this case shows
The case shows how observations of slips, surface condition and expert evidence can establish a slipping hazard together. For occupiers inviting the public to an inspection, lack of actual knowledge did not answer a risk that a cursory examination would have revealed.
Why another case may differ
This was a confined appeal about liability and evidence under ss 5B-5D of the Civil Liability Act 2002. It does not make the paint label alone decisive in every case. There was no relevant appeal ground requiring the visitor to use alternative stairs, and quantum was not reconsidered.
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? →