Where the alleged breach of duty by a public authority is a failure to have a proper inspection system, the plaintiff must demonstrate with precision that there was a practically available alternative system that would have avoided or reduced the risk. A court must consider the magnitude and probability of the risk, the authority's existing system, its competing responsibilities and limited resources, and cannot engage in hindsight reasoning by focusing on the particular harm that eventuated. Weekly visual inspection during mowing of a recreation oval, combined with a general duty on maintenance staff to report hazards, may constitute an adequate response to the risk of holes developing in grassed surfaces where there is no evidence of a high probability of such hazards occurring.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 12 later cases that cite this judgment.