Turnbull v Alm

The dispute in *Turnbull v Alm* concerned an action for negligence brought by the plaintiff, Alm, against the occupier of a shopping centre, Turnbull, and the City Council. Alm suffered injury when she tripped and fell in a hole on a concrete footpath located on private land at the periphery of the shopping area. Turnbull, as the landlord, leased out the shops but retained control over the common areas, including the footpath where the accident occurred. The matter was heard on appeal in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether Turnbull, as the occupier, owed a duty of care to Alm, and if so, whether that duty had been breached. The court also considered whether the trial judge had erred in applying the correct legal test for occupier's liability and whether Turnbull's failure to repair the footpath constituted negligence. Furthermore, the court had to determine the extent of any liability on the part of the City Council, which had undertaken repairs to the footpath on several occasions, and how liability should be apportioned between Turnbull and the City Council.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had incorrectly applied a test that required the occupier to ensure the safety of the common areas. Instead, the court applied the established principles of occupier's liability, which require an occupier to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm to persons entering their premises. The court considered the factual findings of the trial judge, including the size and nature of the defect in the footpath and Turnbull's knowledge of it, as well as the City Council's inadequate repair attempts. Ultimately, the court found that both Turnbull and the City Council were negligent and apportioned liability equally between them.

The appeal by Turnbull against the finding of liability was dismissed. The cross-appeals by Alm were allowed, resulting in an award of 50% contribution against the City Council.