What happened

The plaintiff’s family had occupied the house since 2008 and used the principal sloping entrance very frequently. After one earlier complaint, the owner’s husband had reapplied non-slip treatments over several years; the plaintiff alleged that in October 2014 she heard rain, went outside and fell on the ramp.

The issues

The issues were whether the tiles were wet and slippery, whether the non-slip product itself created danger, and whether a foreseeable and non-insignificant risk required further precautions. The plaintiff also had to prove that any breach was a necessary condition of injury distinct from her pre-existing conditions.

The court's decision

Having considered the long history of safe use, rainfall records, credibility and evidence that the treatment left a gritty surface, the Court was not satisfied that the tiles were slippery. It found no foreseeable risk requiring further precautions and entered verdict and judgment for the defendants, with the plaintiff ordered to pay their costs.

What this case shows

The case is a useful reminder that a fall does not itself establish a dangerous condition or negligence by an occupier or landlord. A claimant must prove the particular hazard, the defendant’s actual or constructive knowledge, the reasonable precaution said to have been omitted, and the causal link to the fall.

Why another case may differ

The result was highly fact-specific, depending on rainfall timing, complaint and maintenance history, extensive incident-free use and witness credibility. The Court said that even on a hypothetical finding of negligence it would not have found aggravation of the pre-existing conditions and would only have allowed the agreed AUD 3,000 expense item, but the actual claim was dismissed and no damages were awarded.

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? →