Dallarooma Pty Ltd t/as CDB Chauffeured Transport v Hyam

Dallarooma Pty Ltd, trading as CDB Chauffeured Transport, appealed a decision of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory that found it liable in negligence for personal injuries sustained by the respondent, Ms. Hyam. Ms. Hyam suffered injuries when her clothing caught on a lever in a passenger vehicle operated by Dallarooma as she was alighting, causing her to fall. The central dispute concerned whether Dallarooma, as a commercial transport business operator, had breached its duty of care to Ms. Hyam.

The legal issues before the court were whether Dallarooma was negligent in failing to establish a system for inspecting its passenger vehicles for safety risks, and whether it owed a duty of care to ensure its vehicles were in a condition that allowed passengers to enter and alight with reasonable safety from the risk of personal injury. Specifically, the court considered whether the risk of injury from clothing catching on protrusions created by bodywork modifications was foreseeable and whether Dallarooma could reasonably rely solely on the certification of a bodyworks installer without implementing its own inspection procedures or requiring incident reports from its employees.

The Full Court of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory held that the standard of care required Dallarooma to assess whether the work performed by the bodyworks installer necessitated precautions a reasonable person would take against a foreseeable, not insignificant risk of harm. The court found that the risk of a passenger's clothes or accessories catching on the vehicle's interior, particularly on obvious protrusions resulting from bodywork modifications, was an obvious risk that required reasonable precautions. Dallarooma's failure to implement a system for requiring reports from its employees regarding passenger incidents or falls, and its sole reliance on the installer's certification, meant it had not met this standard of care.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with costs.