Burrum Shire v Richardson

In *Shire of Burrum v Richardson* and *Shire of Burrum v Gehrmann*, the High Court of Australia considered appeals from the Supreme Court of Queensland concerning the liability of a local authority for the electrocution deaths of two boys in a public bathing enclosure. The actions were brought by the parents of the deceased boys under Lord Campbell's Act, alleging negligence on the part of the Shire of Burrum. The bathing enclosure, situated on a public reserve under the Shire's control, was constructed and maintained by voluntary associations, though the Shire had permitted its erection and provided some financial assistance and relief workers for repairs.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the Shire of Burrum had sufficient control and management of the bathing enclosure and its electrical equipment to render it liable for the deaths, and if so, what duty of care was owed to the users of the enclosure. Specifically, the court had to determine if the Shire's actions, including its provision of relief workers for repairs that allegedly created a concealed danger, established a legal responsibility for the electrocutions. The jury had found that the Shire had control of the enclosure, permitted its construction, allowed electrical equipment to be provided, and ought to have known of a concealed danger which caused the deaths, failing to take reasonable care to ensure its safety.

The High Court was equally divided on the outcome. Latham C.J. and McTiernan J. were of the opinion that the Shire was liable. They reasoned that the Shire exercised actual control and management over the reserve and, by extension, the bathing enclosure and its electrical installation. The provision of relief workers for repairs, who were employees of the Shire, meant that the negligent work performed was attributable to the Shire. They concluded that the Shire had knowledge of a concealed danger, which was not obvious to users, and therefore owed a duty of care to the boys, at least to the standard owed to licensees, which had been breached. Rich and Starke JJ., however, were of the opinion that the Shire should not be held liable. They argued that while the Shire had control of the reserve, its involvement with the bathing enclosure, which was primarily constructed and maintained by voluntary bodies, did not extend to assuming responsibility for its safety, particularly concerning the electrical equipment installed by others.

As the High Court was equally divided, the decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland was affirmed. This meant that the judgments in favour of the plaintiffs, awarding damages for the deaths of their sons, stood.