The observability of a hazard to a pedestrian exercising reasonable care does not determine the existence of a highway authority's duty of care but is relevant to the standard of care and breach of duty. A highway authority has a duty of care to pedestrians where there is a foreseeable risk of harm that is not far-fetched or fanciful, and inadvertence and momentary inattention of pedestrians are within the range of foreseeable risks that the authority must consider when deciding what maintenance action to take. The question whether a pedestrian took reasonable care for his or her own safety does not exclude the pedestrian from the duty of care but may reduce or eliminate the authority's liability through contributory negligence.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 12 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 12 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.