The judgment text provided is incomplete — it cuts off mid-analysis of breach of duty and does not contain the final orders or damages assessment, though the catchwords and order line state 'Judgment for the defendant.' The court found the BCC owed a duty to ensure the barricade was visible at night, to warn cyclists, to delineate its position and extent, and to guide cyclists safely around it, rejecting the 'obvious risk' defence under ss 13 and 15 CLA on the basis that poor lighting rendered the barricade not obvious to a reasonable person in the plaintiff's position. The court's construction of s 36 CLA — whether it applies only to breach of statutory duty or extends to common law negligence claims arising from exercise of statutory functions — is a contested issue flagged for determination. The case demonstrates that public authorities leaving unattended, non-reflective barricades on footpaths overnight without signage, lighting or delineation may face liability notwithstanding compliance with general internal procedures under s 35(d) CLA, though the ultimate outcome turned on the s 36 threshold and contributory negligence findings not fully set out in the text provided.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.