Coffs Harbour City Council v Backman

Coffs Harbour City Council (the appellant) appealed to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales against a decision of the District Court which found the Council liable in negligence for injuries sustained by Mr Backman (the first respondent). Mr Backman had been injured when he tripped on a hidden obstruction while walking on a reserve managed by the Council. The Council had previously issued an order under s 124 of the *Local Government Act 1993* to slash vegetation on the land, but it was argued that the Council had not taken sufficient steps to ensure the safety of the reserve thereafter.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the Council owed a duty of care to Mr Backman, who was a trespasser on the land, and if so, whether the Council had breached that duty. Specifically, the Court had to determine whether the danger that caused Mr Backman's injuries was one that the Council could have reasonably suspected to exist or known to arise, and whether it was reasonably foreseeable that a person would enter the land in question.

The Court of Appeal found that the Council did not owe a duty of care to Mr Backman in the circumstances. The Court reasoned that while a landowner may owe a duty of care to a trespasser in certain situations, this duty is generally limited to preventing injury from a known or reasonably foreseeable danger. In this case, the Court held that the obstruction that caused Mr Backman's fall was not something the Council could have reasonably foreseen or known about, particularly given the nature of the reserve and the absence of any prior complaints or incidents. The Court concluded that the Council had not breached any duty of care owed to Mr Backman.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed. The verdict and judgment entered in the District Court against the appellant (Coffs Harbour City Council) were set aside, and a verdict for the appellant was entered. The Court also made orders regarding the costs of the appeal and the District Court proceedings, including a substitution of judgment against the second respondents.