Garzo v Liverpool/Campbelltown Christian School

The appeal concerned a slip and fall incident within school grounds. The appellant, Ms Garzo, alleged negligence against the respondents, Liverpool/Campbelltown Christian School, after slipping on a painted pedestrian crossing. The primary judge had found the respondents not negligent, and Ms Garzo appealed this decision to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the primary judge erred in finding that the respondents had not breached their duty of care. This involved determining whether the respondents reasonably ought to have known that the painted crossing was unduly slippery on the day of the accident, and whether they failed to take reasonable precautions by not using a paint with better slip-resistant qualities, particularly when tested in wet conditions. The court also considered whether the risk of harm was foreseeable and not insignificant, and whether the primary judge had narrowly defined the risk. Finally, the court examined whether any negligence on the part of the respondents was a necessary condition for the appellant's injury, as per section 5D of the *Civil Liability Act 2002* (NSW).

The Court of Appeal considered the evidence regarding slip resistance standards, including AS/NZS 4586:1999 and HB 197:1999, which provided classifications for pedestrian surfaces based on British Pendulum Numbers (BPN). Expert testing conducted by Mr Stephenson, on behalf of the appellant, yielded an average BPN of 50 for the painted crossing, which was classified as having a "low" contribution to the risk of slipping when wet. While some worn areas showed slightly higher results, the worst results were 45 BPN. Mr Stephenson also conducted a test using the same paint applied to a section of the crossing, which resulted in a BPN of 40, falling within a classification considered to have a moderate risk of slipping. The court noted that the expert evidence did not establish that the respondents had failed to meet any applicable standard or that professional testing shortly before the accident would have revealed a condition requiring immediate remedial action. The primary judge's assessment that the respondents had not breached their duty of care was upheld.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the respondents.