The question of whether a plaintiff exercised reasonable care for their own safety is relevant to contributory negligence but must not be conflated with the question of whether the defendant breached its duty of care. A hazard deliberately created by an occupier (such as a low-slung, ground-coloured rope across an entranceway) that is not obvious to persons in the plaintiff's position constitutes a trap calling for warning, and the occupier's failure to provide such warning is a breach of duty. The threshold requirements of s 15(3) of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) require that gratuitous attendant care services exceed six hours per week; where the only direct medical evidence assessed the need at two hours per week maximum, the threshold is not met.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 5 later cases that cite this judgment.