What happened
In December 2000 the plaintiff was sitting on grass in Hyde Park North when a branch about seven or eight metres long fell from a Hills weeping fig and struck her. Dense planting and included bark made these otherwise healthy-looking trees prone to shedding long, heavy branches, a propensity known to both the City and Prestige. The City had engaged Prestige as a specialist park-maintenance contractor, and Prestige subcontracted arboricultural work without establishing the inspection system required to identify this danger.
The issues
Prestige argued that the City’s continuing control and supervision prevented or narrowed any independent duty owed by the contractor, and that its promise to remove dangerous branches was confined to hazards apparent from ground level. It also alleged that the trial judge failed properly to consider or explain the treatment of a joint expert report.
The court's decision
The Court of Appeal held that the City had reasonably discharged its delegable duty by selecting and supervising a specialist contractor, but that did not remove Prestige’s separate duty to park users. Properly construed, the contract required monitoring and removal of branches whose danger was detectable on reasonable arboricultural inspection, and Prestige could not narrow that obligation by the limited work it arranged with its subcontractor.
Understanding the figures
The trial court assessed historical damages at AUD 718,259.95. Quantum was not in issue on appeal, and the contractor’s liability appeal was dismissed with costs.
What this case shows
The case shows that a public authority may discharge a delegable duty through reasonable engagement and supervision of a specialist while the contractor remains independently liable to users for its own negligent performance. Contractual safety objectives and promised professional standards may define the practical scope of reasonable inspection and hazard removal.
Why another case may differ
Causation and quantum were not challenged on appeal, and the decision depended heavily on the detailed maintenance contract and known characteristics of these trees. Engaging an independent contractor does not invariably absolve a principal; the result may differ where the duty is non-delegable, selection or supervision is unreasonable, or the parties retained different practical control.
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? →