Tremeer v City of Sterling

In *Tremeer v City of Sterling*, the High Court of Australia considered a dispute between the appellant, Ms Tremeer, and the respondent, the City of Sterling. The case concerned the appellant's claim for damages for personal injury sustained as a result of a fall on a public footpath. The appellant alleged that the respondent, as the owner and occupier of the footpath, had failed to maintain it in a safe condition, thereby breaching its duty of care.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the respondent had breached its duty of care to the appellant. This involved determining whether the condition of the footpath, which was described as having a 'lip' or 'edge' of approximately 2.5 cm, constituted a dangerous defect. The court also had to consider whether the respondent had taken reasonable steps to prevent the foreseeable risk of injury to persons using the footpath.

The High Court ultimately found that the respondent had not breached its duty of care. The majority reasoned that the existence of a lip of 2.5 cm on a footpath, while a deviation from a perfectly level surface, did not, in the circumstances, present an unreasonable risk of harm to pedestrians. They considered that such minor imperfections were common in public thoroughfares and that it was not reasonable to expect local authorities to eliminate all such irregularities. The court applied the principles of negligence, focusing on the concept of reasonable foreseeability of harm and the standard of care expected of a public authority in maintaining its assets. The appeal was dismissed.