The risk of harm under s 48(1) of the Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) must not be confined to the precise concatenation of circumstances in which the plaintiff was injured, but must be defined by reference to the nature or type of harm that ensued. However, where a driveway is well-maintained, has no unusual hazards, and the darkness is obvious to the plaintiff, a reasonable occupier is entitled to expect the entrant to use their own artificial light source, and the probability of harm from an unseen irregularity may be so low as to be insignificant.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 43 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 43 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.