Francis v Lewis

In this matter, the appellants, owners of a property, appealed a decision concerning a slip and fall incident where the respondent fell from an external stairway. The stairway featured a single pipe handrail at a height of 865mm. The central dispute revolved around whether the appellants were negligent in their duty of care to the respondent by failing to install a mid-rail on the stairway, which presented obvious risks to users.

The court was required to determine whether the appellants breached their duty of reasonable care to the respondent. This involved considering whether the risk of injury from the stairway was reasonably foreseeable, the relevance of "lawful common practice" at the time of construction, and the availability of preventative measures. Crucially, the court also had to address whether it was just to allow the respondent to rely on building ordinances and codes that were not litigated at trial, particularly those enacted after the stairway's construction.

The court reasoned that it would be unjust to permit the respondent to rely on ordinances and codes that came into effect after the stairway was built, as the appellants had no opportunity to present evidence regarding their impact on building practice. Similarly, reliance on specific clauses of Ordinance 71, such as cl 40(f) and cl 44B, was deemed unjust due to ambiguities regarding their application and the lack of evidence as to when the stairway was constructed. Consequently, the parties' rights were to be determined based on the stairway's compliance with Ordinance 71 at the time of its construction, without any obligation to reconstruct or upgrade it under subsequent regulations. The court affirmed that the issue of breach of duty is determined by the principles of reasonable care, considering the foreseeability of risk, but also acknowledging that plaintiffs are expected to act reasonably for their own safety.

The appeal was dismissed.