Spencer v Maryborough City Council

The appellant, Spencer, sought compensation from the Maryborough City Council (respondent) for injuries sustained when she tripped over an uneven pavement, which the Council owned. The dispute centred on the essentials of an action for negligence, specifically whether the Council owed a duty of care to the respondent and if that duty was breached. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The court was required to determine whether the Council had a duty of care towards pedestrians such as the respondent and whether the content of that duty had been established. Additionally, the court needed to ascertain if the conclusion as to a breach of duty could be reasonably reached without specifying the content of the duty. The court also examined whether the Council's failure to implement a system of inspection for detecting faults in the pavement constituted a breach of duty, and whether it was necessary to establish the content and form of the inspection system to determine if the respondent's injuries could have been prevented. Finally, the court considered whether the Council had taken reasonable steps to ascertain the existence of the risk before the respondent's fall, particularly since the Council had reduced the risk by "mowing" the footpath once the defect became known.

The court found that the Council owed a duty of care to the respondent, but the content of this duty was not clearly established. The court held that it was not necessary to specify the content of the duty to determine whether there had been a breach. The court also found that the Council's failure to implement an inspection system did not necessarily amount to a breach of duty. Furthermore, the court determined that the Council had taken reasonable steps to address the risk after it became known through the respondent's fall. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and judgment was entered for the appellant. The respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal, to be assessed.