The Court of Appeal held that an unpainted speed hump in a carpark was not an 'obvious risk' under s 5F of the Civil Liability Act where all other irregularities and hazards in the carpark had been painted yellow, as the painting of all other hazards but not the speed humps could divert pedestrian attention away from the unpainted features. The Court upheld the finding of breach of duty on the basis that a reasonable person would have painted the speed humps consistently with all other hazards, given the trivial cost and the foreseeable tripping risk, but set aside awards for future economic loss and future domestic assistance — the former for failure to comply with s 13's transparency requirements and inconsistency with the evidence of the plaintiff's actual post-accident employment, and the latter because the evidence established that gratuitous care would continue regardless of any commercial award. The Court left open whether painting a hazard to make it more visible constitutes a 'warning' for the purposes of s 5H.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.