Eutick v City of Canada Bay Council

The appeal concerned a claim in negligence brought by the plaintiff, Mr Eutick, against the City of Canada Bay Council. Mr Eutick had tripped and fallen on a pedestrian crossing, sustaining injuries. The primary dispute revolved around whether the Council had breached its duty of care to maintain the pedestrian crossing in a safe condition. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the risk of injury from the alleged defect in the pedestrian crossing was so insignificant that it was unreasonable to expect the Council to take precautions to avoid it, pursuant to section 5B(1)(b) of the *Civil Liability Act 2002* (NSW). This required the court to assess the nature of the hazard, the likelihood of harm, and the burden of taking precautions.

The Court of Appeal found that the alleged defect, a slight unevenness in the pedestrian crossing, presented an insignificant risk of harm. Applying the principles of section 5B(1)(b) of the *Civil Liability Act 2002*, the court reasoned that the risk was not one that a reasonable council would have taken precautions against. The minor nature of the defect meant that the likelihood of a pedestrian tripping and suffering injury was very low, and the burden of constantly inspecting and rectifying such minor imperfections across all pedestrian crossings would be disproportionate.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the costs of the City of Canada Bay Council.