Gondoline Pty Ltd v Hansford

[2002] WASCA 214

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Tort
2. › Negligence
3. › Occupier's liability
4. › Duty of care
5. › Pathway on commercial premises
6. › Protruding paving stone
7. › Whether half-inch to one-inch protrusion constituted foreseeable risk of injury
8. › Whether everyday risk pedestrians expected to guard against
9. › Occupiers' Liability Act 1985 (WA), s 5
1. Tort
2. › Negligence
3. › Breach of duty
4. › Standard of care
5. › Inspection and maintenance of pathway
6. › Whether failure to detect minor paving imperfection constituted breach
7. › Distinction between latent dangers and obvious imperfections
1. Appeal
2. › Standard of appellate review
3. › Findings of fact by trial judge
4. › Credibility findings
5. › Whether appellate court precluded from reviewing findings based on credibility assessments
6. › Circumstances in which appellate court may evaluate evidence supporting findings

Quick Take

A paver protruding half an inch to one inch on a pathway at a rural tourist farm does not constitute a breach of an occupier's duty of care, as it is an ordinary everyday risk that pedestrians are expected to guard against. The duty of care does not require pathways to be maintained to the standard of a bowling green. The context of the location (rural vs urban) is relevant to assessing the standard of care required.