What happened

In August 2020, Ms Moore attempted to pass two pedestrians on a shared path in Ballina. She steered onto the verge to avoid a bollard previously obscured by the pedestrians and fell while turning back onto the path, injuring her hip. One of an original pair of bollards had been removed after damage in 2016.

The issues

The central question was whether reasonable care required the council to remove the remaining bollard. The trial considered the audit report, removal cost, social utility, obvious risk and the rider's care. The appeal examined the weight given to the audit's brief opinion and the bollard's continuing potential to slow cyclists.

The court's decision

The trial found negligence and causation, rejected contributory negligence and entered judgment for the agreed damages. On 6 July 2023, the Court of Appeal held that breach had not been established, set aside the orders and dismissed the claim. Ms Moore was ordered to pay trial and appeal costs and received a Suitors' Fund certificate.

Understanding the figures

The trial entered judgment for agreed historical damages of AUD $193,531.39, but that order was set aside in 2023. This is not a surviving damages award, and the appeal did not substitute a different amount.

What this case shows

An obstacle's involvement in an accident does not establish that reasonable care required its earlier removal. The appeal explained that a single bollard could still encourage slower cycling and that even an absence of utility would not, by itself, establish negligent non-removal.

Why another case may differ

The 2022 decision must not be presented as a surviving success for the rider. The judgments concern this 2020 site under the Civil Liability Act 2002, not the acceptability of every bollard layout. The appeal did not treat the council's lack of liability as proof of fault by Ms Moore and saw no reason to disturb the finding that she had taken reasonable care.

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? →