Ellis v. Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (Q)

The plaintiff, Ellis, sued the defendant, Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust, for damages resulting from a trip and fall injury sustained on a public footpath. The injury occurred when Ellis tripped on a protruding paver on the driveway that crosses the footpath. Ellis gave a contemporaneous statement identifying the location of the fall. The defendant argued that the paver posed a slight risk and was obvious, and that the injury did not result from any breach of their duty. The court had to determine whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff and if that duty was breached, leading to the plaintiff’s injury. It also had to consider the nature and extent of the risk posed by the protruding paver, and whether the risk was slight and obvious as claimed by the defendant.

The court examined whether the defendant had a duty of care towards the plaintiff as a member of the public using the footpath. It considered the foreseeability of the risk and whether the risk was slight and obvious. The court concluded that while the risk was slight and obvious, the defendant did not breach their duty of care because Ellis's injury was not due to such a breach. The court found that Ellis’s trip and fall was not a result of any negligence on the part of the defendant, as the risk was slight and obvious, and Ellis had failed to take reasonable care for her own safety.

In light of the findings, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claim, holding that the defendant was not liable for the plaintiff’s injuries. The court held that the risk posed by the protruding paver was slight and obvious, and that the plaintiff’s injury did not result from any breach of duty by the defendant. The court entered judgment in favour of the defendant, dismissing the plaintiff’s action in its entirety.