Shellharbour City Council v Johnson

Case [2006] NSWCA 67



New South Wales


Court of Appeal


CITATION: Shellharbour City Council v Johnson [2006] NSWCA 67
HEARING DATE(S): 14 February 2006
 
JUDGMENT DATE: 

6 April 2006
JUDGMENT OF: Beazley JA at [1]; Tobias JA at [2]; Hunt AJA at [3]
DECISION: (1) Leave to appeal is granted.; (2) The appeal is dismissed.; (3) The appellant is to pay the respondent’s costs.
CATCHWORDS: Cyclists invited by council to use laneway to gain access to cycleway — blind spot at intersection of laneway and cycleway — fence to right of laneway and tree alongside cycleway as it curves to right — difficult for persons in laneway and cyclists on cycleway to see each other until reaching the curve itself — risk of collision obvious — intersection inherently dangerous and “trap” — duty of care owed — whether duty owed to person who fails to take reasonable care for his or her own safety — risk of collision could not be avoided if council’s invitation to use area is accepted — council not relieved of duty to take reasonable measures to guard against risk — appeal against liability dismissed.
CASES CITED: Brodie v Singleton Shire Council; Ghantous v Hawkesbury Shire Council (2001) 206 CLR 512
Burwood Council v Byrnes [2002] NSWCA 343
Clarke v Coleambally Ski Club [2004] NSWCA 376
Commissioner for Railways v Anderson (1961) 105 CLR 42
Consolidated Broken Hill Ltd v Edwards [2005] NSWCA 380
Lake Macquarie City Council v Holt [2004] NSWCA 305
Langham v Connells Point Rovers Soccer Club Inc [2005] NSWCA 461
Mulligan v Coffs Harbour City Council (2005) 80 ALJR 43
Newcastle City Council v McShane [2004] NSWCA 425
Sutherland Shire Council v Henshaw [2004] NSWCA 386
Swain v Waverley Municipal Council (2005) 220 CLR 517
Temora Shire Council v Stein [2004] NSWCA 236
Thompson v Woolworths (Queensland) Pty Ltd (2005) 221 CLR 234
Vairy v Wyong Shire Council (2005) 221 ALR 711
Woods v Multi-Sport Holdings Pty Ltd (2002) 208 CLR 460
PARTIES: Shellharbour City Council – Claimant
Aaron Johnson – Opponent
FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40238/05
COUNSEL: P Garling SC – Claimant
SG Campbell SC – Opponent
SOLICITORS: Leitch Hasson Dent – Claimant
DGB Lawyers – Opponent
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): DC 142/01
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Quirk DCJ

1 BEAZLEY JA: I agree with Hunt AJA.

2 TOBIAS JA: I agree with Hunt AJA.

3 HUNT AJA: The opponent, Aaron Johnson, as plaintiff sued the claimant, Shellharbour City Council, as defendant in the District Court, claiming damages for personal injuries sustained by him on 9 August 1995 whilst he was riding his bicycle on to a cycleway in Albion Park when he collided with another cyclist. The plaintiff was seventeen years old at the time of the collision.

4 The trial judge made the following findings as to the circumstances of the collision. The cycleway is situated in the Con O’Keefe Oval, which is near the Albion Park High School. The cycleway is part of the oval…

Continue reading Shellharbour City Council v Johnson

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Shellharbour City Council v Johnson [2006] NSWCA 67
Case
[2006] NSWCA 67
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Shellharbour City Council (the appellant) appealed to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales against a decision that found it liable for injuries sustained by Mr Johnson (the respondent) when he collided with another cyclist. The dispute arose from an accident at the intersection of a laneway and a cycleway, where the council had invited cyclists to use the laneway to access the cycleway. A blind spot created by a fence and a tree made it difficult for cyclists approaching the intersection from the laneway and those on the cycleway to see each other until they reached the curve of the cycleway.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the council owed a duty of care to Mr Johnson in the circumstances, and if so, whether that duty had been breached. Specifically, the court considered whether the council's invitation to use the laneway, coupled with the inherent dangers of the intersection, created a foreseeable risk of harm that the council was obliged to mitigate. The court also examined whether the respondent's own failure to take care for his safety relieved the council of its duty.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that the council's invitation to use the laneway created a situation where a collision was a real and foreseeable risk, particularly given the design of the intersection which presented a "trap" for users. The court held that the council was not relieved of its duty of care simply because the risk of collision could not be entirely avoided if the invitation was accepted. Instead, the council had a duty to take reasonable measures to guard against such risks. The court found that the council had failed to discharge this duty.

Consequently, leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal itself was dismissed. The appellant, Shellharbour City Council, was ordered to pay the respondent's costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Leave to appeal is granted.; (2) The appeal is dismissed.; (3) The appellant is to pay the respondent’s costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.