Australia, June 27 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on May 27:

1. Lisa Marie Maclean (the "Plaintiff") sues for personal injury damages, alleging breach of duty of care by the defendant, Richmond Valley Municipal Council (the "Defendant"), consequent of injuries suffered by her in a fall on a footpath on 8 March 2023. She was then 55 years of age, living alone in a 2 bedroom plus sleepout, one bathroom house with a yard at 31 Colche Street, Casino, NSW. The Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) ("CLA") applies in the determination of these proceedings.

LIABILITY

2. The Plaintiff tripped on the raised lip of a concrete section of the footpath outside 37 Colche Street; that is, in front of a house, on the same side of the street, and 3 properties removed from her home. Simpson Parade met Colche Street between numbers 35 and 37.

3. The Plaintiff fell when nearly home from her daily, morning walk. As was her habit to do, she had departed from home on her regular route at about 5:30 AM. New South Wales Ambulance received the call from 000 at 5:54 AM. The Plaintiff had sought assistance by calling her daughter Kristen and a friend, being unsuccessful in both instances, before calling 000. On the whole of the evidence her fall occurred at about 5:45 AM. The timing of the fall is relevant to the quality of daylight providing visibility to the footpath surface. The Plaintiff described it as being partial light. No evidence of other light sources, such as from streetlights, was given. Indeed, the evidence on the subject of visibility was sparse.

4. The mechanism of her fall was that her left foot tripped against the raised lip of a concrete footpath section. After her fall, the Plaintiff measured the lip at the point she believed she tripped to be 23mm above the level of the preceding concrete footpath surface. The parties frequently referred to this as the "height differential". The Plaintiff stumbled forward, suffered a cut to her left palm as she grabbed the metal front fence of number 37, and continued to fall onto her outstretched right arm and knees against the concrete. She also grazed the side of her face. In all, she travelled more than 3m in her stumbling course to the footpath.

5. The Defendant's Operational Policy for Inspection, Assessment and Maintenance of Footpaths and Cycleways (Exhibit E - "the Policy") provided guidelines aimed at reducing the risk of injury to the public and consequent exposure of the Defendant to the possibility of claims against it in respect of the footpaths and cycleways it managed. Under the Policy, two approaches were provided for. What I will call the "Inspection" approach involved inspection and hazard identification leading to hazard evaluation and intervention-level prioritisation. What I will call the "Reactive" approach was triggered by complaints, requests and reports received via the Defendant's Customer Request Management System.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/1970b1ef366b9099b65e84d3)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.