Campbelltown City Council v Frew
Case
•
[2003] NSWCA 154
•19 June 2002
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Campbelltown City Council v Frew [2003] NSWCA 154
[2003] NSWCA 154
19 June 2002
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Campbelltown City Council (the Council) appealed a decision in favour of the respondent, Ms Frew, who had suffered injury after slipping while stepping up a tiered seating area at a public swimming pool. Ms Frew had elected to use the tiered seating as steps, despite the availability of intermediate steps. The Council was aware that the tiers were sometimes used in this manner.
The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the Council had breached its duty of care to Ms Frew. Specifically, the court considered whether the risk of injury from using the tiers as steps was foreseeable, whether the likelihood of such a risk occurring was low, and whether the Council had taken reasonable care to prevent the injury, including the adequacy of the 'nosing' on the tiers.
The Court of Appeal found that while the risk of injury was foreseeable, it was an obvious risk, and the likelihood of it occurring was low. The court reasoned that it was reasonable to expect persons to take care for their own safety when navigating such an environment, particularly when alternative, safer means of access were available. The existing 'nosing' on the tiers was considered adequate, and the Council was not found to have acted unreasonably in not implementing further safety measures.
Consequently, the appeal was allowed.
The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the Council had breached its duty of care to Ms Frew. Specifically, the court considered whether the risk of injury from using the tiers as steps was foreseeable, whether the likelihood of such a risk occurring was low, and whether the Council had taken reasonable care to prevent the injury, including the adequacy of the 'nosing' on the tiers.
The Court of Appeal found that while the risk of injury was foreseeable, it was an obvious risk, and the likelihood of it occurring was low. The court reasoned that it was reasonable to expect persons to take care for their own safety when navigating such an environment, particularly when alternative, safer means of access were available. The existing 'nosing' on the tiers was considered adequate, and the Council was not found to have acted unreasonably in not implementing further safety measures.
Consequently, the appeal was allowed.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Negligence & Tort
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Duty of Care
-
Negligence
-
Appeal
-
Expert Evidence
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Faruk v Sydney Airport Corporation Limited and Asset Link Services Pty Ltd [2021] NSWDC 206
Cases Citing This Decision
5
Bathurst City Council v Cheesman
[2004] NSWCA 308
Lockhart Shire Council v King
[2004] NSWCA 169
Fairfield City Council v Petro
[2003] NSWCA 150
Cases Cited
9
Statutory Material Cited
0
Vairy v Wyong Shire Council
[2005] HCA 62
Vairy v Wyong Shire Council
[2005] HCA 62
Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles
[2001] NSWCA 305