Rankilor v City of South Perth

[2016] WASCA 29

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Tort Law
2. › Negligence
3. › Breach of duty of care
4. › Local authority
5. › Footpath maintenance
6. › Pedestrian tripping on raised paver
7. › Whether footpath reasonably safe for ordinary use
8. › Whether height differential of 20-25mm constitutes breach
9. › Civil Liability Act 2002 (WA), s 5B
1. Tort Law
2. › Negligence
3. › Duty of care
4. › Road authority
5. › Standard of care owed to pedestrians
6. › Duty to keep path reasonably safe for users exercising reasonable care
7. › Whether pedestrians expected to observe and avoid minor irregularities
1. Appeal
2. › Standard of appellate review
3. › Appeal from findings of fact
4. › Credibility findings
5. › Whether appellate court should disturb trial judge's factual findings
6. › Fox v Percy principles

Quick Take

A 20-25mm height differential in a suburban footpath paver caused by tree roots does not, without more, render the footpath unsafe for users exercising reasonable care, and a local authority is not in breach of its duty of care in such circumstances where it has conducted periodic inspections and had no actual knowledge of the specific protrusion. The fact that shade from an adjacent tree falls on the area of the protrusion does not of itself take the situation out of the ordinary. The question whether a footpath is a 'road' for the purposes of the s 5Z road authority defence in the Civil Liability Act 2002 (WA) remains unresolved.