Where a road authority knows that large numbers of persons are regularly ignoring obvious risks in utilising areas under its control due to the exigencies of life and human nature, the authority cannot rely on the assumption that persons will exercise reasonable care for their own safety, and the obviousness of the risk will not negate the duty of care or be effectively conclusive on breach. The presence of attractions (such as shops, schools, and taverns) accessible only by crossing a dangerous road may constitute an allurement relevant to the finding of a duty of care, particularly in relation to children. Mawlodi v State Rail Authority is confined to cases of casual trespass and does not apply where mass pedestrian crossing is an established community practice and the authority's own officers have recognised the inadequacy of existing measures.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 10 later cases that cite this judgment.