Lahoud v Lahoud

The appellant, Lahoud, sustained injuries when he stepped into a hole located in the nature strip between the formed footpath and the gutter. He brought proceedings against the respondent, the Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales, alleging negligence. The central question before the Court of Appeal of New South Wales was whether the Authority was liable for the injuries sustained by the appellant.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the appellant's claim fell within the ambit of section 45 of the *Civil Liability Act 2002* (NSW), which concerns the liability of roads authorities for failure to carry out roadwork, and, if so, whether the Authority had actual knowledge of the specific risk that caused the appellant's injury. Section 45 requires proof of actual knowledge of the risk for a claim to succeed against a roads authority for failure to carry out roadwork.

The court considered the nature of the appellant's injury and the location of the hole. It was determined that the claim did not relate to a failure to carry out roadwork in the sense contemplated by section 45 of the *Civil Liability Act 2002*. Instead, the court found that the Authority had not been shown to have actual knowledge of the particular risk posed by the hole in the nature strip. Without proof of actual knowledge of the risk, the statutory protection afforded to roads authorities under section 45 was engaged, and the claim could not succeed.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.