A council's actual knowledge of an obvious footpath defect, and its commencement of repair work, does not create a duty to erect barriers or warnings around the defect. The duty to warn or protect pedestrians only arises where the defect is not obvious. The care pedestrians must take for their own safety enters into the definition of the duty, not merely contributory negligence. Placement of objects near a hazard that may distract pedestrians does not constitute a breach of duty where the hazard remains obvious to a person exercising reasonable care. An extra-judicial article by a trial judge expressing mild, circumspect criticism of appellate decisions does not give rise to apprehended bias.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 6 later cases that cite this judgment.