Australian Capital Territory v Chorlton

The Australian Capital Territory Court of Appeal heard an appeal from a decision of the Master of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The appeal concerned a claim in negligence brought by Deborah Ann Chorlton against the Australian Capital Territory. Ms Chorlton suffered injuries when roller-blading on a cycle path constructed and maintained by the Territory, which terminated abruptly without adequate warning. The Master had entered judgment for Ms Chorlton, and the Territory appealed, challenging findings on liability, particularly the rejection of its contention that Ms Chorlton had been contributorily negligent.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the Territory had breached its duty of care to Ms Chorlton by designing and constructing a path that posed a foreseeable risk of harm, and whether Ms Chorlton's actions constituted contributory negligence. The Court was required to consider the principles established in *Brodie v Singleton Shire Council; Ghantous v Hawkesbury City Council* regarding the liability of public authorities for the design and construction of public works, and whether the hazard presented by the path was avoidable by the exercise of reasonable care by Ms Chorlton.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the Master's findings, holding that the Territory had breached its duty of care. The Master had correctly identified that the abrupt termination of the path beyond an underpass, concealed until the last moment, presented a foreseeable risk to users such as roller-bladers. The Court agreed that this risk could have been alleviated through reasonable measures during construction or subsequently, such as extending the path or installing warning signs. Furthermore, the Court upheld the Master's finding that Ms Chorlton was not contributorily negligent. Her actions, including accelerating to gain momentum out of the underpass and her subsequent attempt to turn when she realised the path ended, were considered a reasonable response to an emergency situation. The Court found no evidence that she was not looking where she was going, that she failed to respond quickly enough, or that she acted inappropriately given the split-second decision required. Her experience and equipment were deemed appropriate, and her fall was attributed to the hazard created by the Territory, not her own lack of care.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with costs.