What happened

The claimant fell near the ramp onto a pedestrian crossing while returning to his vehicle in the rain. CCTV showed the slip on white paint and many other people crossing safely around the time of the incident. Later renovations prevented testing of the surface as it had been at the time.

The issues

The issues were whether the occupier had failed to take reasonable precautions to maintain or inspect slip resistance, and whether that failure caused the fall. Both experts had misidentified the location of the slip, substantially reducing the usefulness of their opinions.

The court's decision

The risk was foreseeable and not insignificant, but the evidence did not establish overdue inspection or inadequate friction. The CCTV also defeated the suggestion that the claimant had failed to take care immediately before falling. Judgment and costs favoured the defendant, without the special costs order it sought.

Understanding the figures

The parties agreed quantum at AUD 136,810 while contesting liability. Because liability was not established, that sum was not awarded and the claimant was ordered to pay costs.

What this case shows

Expert evidence needs an accurate account of where and how a fall occurred. An absence of previous incidents is not decisive by itself, but use history and maintenance evidence can inform reasonable precautions. A claimant can have taken reasonable care yet still fail to establish negligence by the occupier.

Why another case may differ

The decision does not establish that wet painted surfaces are always safe or that a clean incident history defeats liability. It turned on unavailable friction measurements and experts addressing the wrong location. Technical standards and inspection intervals discussed in the reasons are evidence in this case, not a statement of universal current requirements.

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? →