Burwood Council v Byrnes

Link copied
Case Copied 19 min read
CITATION: Burwood Council v Byrnes [2002] NSWCA 343
FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40944/01
HEARING DATE(S): 5 August 2002
JUDGMENT DATE:
4 November 2002

PARTIES :


Burwood Council v Lorraine Byrnes
JUDGMENT OF: Handley JA at 1; Beazley JA at 41; Hodgson JA at 42
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : District Court
LOWER COURT
FILE NUMBER(S) :
DC 132/00
LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER :
Dent DCJ
COUNSEL: Appellant - M J Joseph QC/R Gambi
Respondent - M Perry
SOLICITORS: Appellant - Phillips Fox Sydney
Respondent - Voros Lawyers Burwood
CATCHWORDS: NEGLIGENCE - HIGHWAY RULE - DUTY OF CARE TO PEDESTRIAN
CASES CITED:
Ghantous v Hawkesbury City Council (2001) 206 CLR 512
Hawkesbury City Council v Ryan [2001] NSW CA 212
Parramatta City Council v Watkins [2001] NSW CA 364
Lombardi v Holroyd City Council [2002] NSW CA 252
DECISION: Leave to appeal granted on terms. Appeal allowed. Orders made





                          40944/01
                          DC 132/00
                          HANDLEY JA
                          BEAZLEY JA
                          HODGSON JA

                          4 November 2002
BURWOOD COUNCIL v LORRAINE BYRNES

NEGLIGENCE - HighWAY RULE - duty of care TO PEDESTRIAN

The plaintiff tripped over a concrete paver on a Council footpath and fell heavily. One paver had sunk more than others, resulting in a height difference of 20 mm. The trial Judge found that the condition was discoverable on reasonable inspection and that the defendant Council had been negligent but also found contributory negligence and reduced the plaintiff’s damages.

: The Judge misdirected himself as to the Council’s duty of care. A Council’s duty to pedestrians is to take reasonable care to prevent or eliminate dangers to pedestrians taking reasonable care for their own safety. See Ghantous v Hawkesbury City Council (2001) 206 CLR 512. The Council had not been negligent as the height differential of 20 mm was obvious and was not dangerous to a pedestrian taking reasonable care for his on her own safety.


                      ORDERS

      (1) Leave to appeal granted on terms that the appellant pay the respondent’s costs in this Court subject to the appellant filing and serving the notice of appeal within 14 days;

      (2) Appeal allowed;

      (3) Set aside the judgment in the District Court and in lieu thereof enter judgment for the defendant with costs;

      (4) The appellant to pay the respondent’s costs of the proceedings in this Court.



                          40944/01
                          DC 132/00
                          HANDLEY JA
                          BEAZLEY JA
                          HODGSON JA

                          4 November 2002

BURWOOD COUNCIL v LORRAINE BYRNES


Judgment

1 HANDLEY JA: On 28 May 1999 Mrs Lorraine Byrnes tripped on a concrete paver on the footpath of Burwood Road just north of the north western corner of the intersection with Milton Lane and fell heavily. She brought proceedings for negligence against the Council and on 12 November 2001 Dent DCJ awarded her damages of $43,699.47 after allowing for her contributory negligence which he assessed at 20%.

2 The Council has applied for leave to appeal on grounds limited to liability and contributory negligence. The parties were heard fully on the basis that, if leave were granted, the Court would determine…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Burwood Council v Byrnes and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2002] NSWCA 343
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New South Wales considered a claim in negligence brought by Ms. Byrnes against Burwood Council. The dispute arose from injuries Ms. Byrnes sustained when she was struck by a motor vehicle while crossing a road within the council's local government area. Ms. Byrnes alleged that the council owed her a duty of care in relation to the maintenance and safety of the road and its surrounds, and that it breached this duty.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether Burwood Council owed a duty of care to pedestrians, such as Ms. Byrnes, in relation to the condition of the road and the surrounding area, and if so, whether that duty had been breached. This involved an examination of the scope of a local council's responsibilities concerning public roads and the potential for liability in negligence for injuries caused by the road's condition.

The Court of Appeal found that a local council does owe a duty of care to road users, including pedestrians, to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm arising from the condition of the roads under its control. The court reasoned that councils have a statutory responsibility for the maintenance of roads, and this responsibility carries with it a common law duty to exercise reasonable care. In this instance, the court determined that the council had breached its duty of care. Leave to appeal was granted on terms, and the appeal was allowed, with specific orders made by the court.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal granted on terms. Appeal allowed. Orders made

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.