Wright v Gold Coast City Council

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: [WRIGHT v GOLD COAST CITY COUNCIL] [2000] QDC 193

PARTIES: MARGARET ELLEN WRIGHT Plaintiff

AND

GOLD COAST CITY COUNCIL Defendant

FILE NO/S: Plaint No 543 of 1999.

PROCEEDING: Claim for damages for personal injuries.

COURT: District Court at Southport.

DELIVERD ON: 23 June 2000.

HEARING DATES: 25 May 2000.

JUDGE: Newton D.C.J.

CATCHWORDS: Negligence – personal injuries – pedestrian falling on footpath.

Whether council liable for non-feasance as highway authority – distinction between council acting as highway authority and traffic authority – whether differences in height between surfaces on footpath were caused by posts channelling pedestrians and producing worn tracks on grass – whether duty of care established.

COUNSEL: Mr R Trotter for the plaintiff.
Mr K Howe for the defendant

SOLICITORS: Shane Ellis Lawyer for the plaintiff
O’Keefe Mahoney Bennett for the defendant

IN THE DISTRICT COURT

HELD AT SOUTHPORT

QUEENSLAND

Plaint No 543 of 1999

BETWEEN
MARGARET ELLEN WRIGHT

Applicant

AND
GOLD COAST CITY COUNCIL

Defendant

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT – NEWTON D.C.J.

Delivered the Twenty-third day of June 2000

This proceeding involves a claim for damages for personal injuries arising out of a fall at or near the intersection of Hillstar Street and Christine Avenue, Burleigh Heads. Liability remains in issue; quantum of damages having been agreed in the total sum of $23,750.00.
The plaintiff who was aged fifty-four years at the time of the accident, was walking with her daughter-in-law in an easterly direction along Christine Avenue. The plaintiff’s daughter-in-law was pushing a pram in which was the plaintiff’s grand-daughter. The relevant date was 26 January, 1998 and the relevant time was around twilight, the sun having set. The plaintiff was wearing “runners” which were in good condition. There was no evidence before me in relation to lighting or weather conditions.
The plaintiff was reasonably familiar with the intersection because, although she lived in Sydney, she would visit her son and daughter-in-law on two or three occasions each year. Her son and daughter-in-law lived locally. Her visits would usually be of some two weeks’ duration and she had been staying with her son and daughter-in-law on this visit for almost a week.
As the plaintiff crossed Hillstar Street her daughter-in-law was walking on her left. The plaintiff was watching for traffic turning from Christine Avenue into Hillstar Street. When she had proceeded safely across Hillstar Street the plaintiff negotiated the kerbing satisfactorily and began to traverse the grassed area leading to the concrete footpath. She took one step onto the grassed area but when she took the next step she caught her foot on the edge of the concrete, fell and struck the far edge of the concrete footpath with her face.
At the time of the incident there was no concrete ramp in existence to facilitate progress from the road surface to the footpath. Such a ramp was installed by the defendant in December, 1998. There is no evidence before me to establish the reason for such a ramp being installed…

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Wright v Gold Coast City Council, the plaintiff, Margaret Ellen Wright, sought damages for personal injuries sustained in a fall on a footpath. The incident occurred on 26 January 1998 at the intersection of Hillstar Street and Christine Avenue, Burleigh Heads. The plaintiff, who was familiar with the area, was crossing the street with her daughter-in-law and grand-daughter when she fell on the grassed area leading to the footpath. The fall resulted from catching her foot on the edge of the concrete footpath. The primary issue before the court was whether the Gold Coast City Council was liable for the plaintiff’s injuries.

The court had to determine whether the council, as the highway authority, was responsible for the unsafe condition of the footpath caused by the installation of bollards. The bollards were installed to prevent vehicles from parking near a post box but had inadvertently created worn tracks on the grass that led to a significant height difference between the grass and the concrete footpath. The court needed to decide if the council’s installation of the bollards constituted misfeasance or non-feasance and whether the council owed a duty of care to the plaintiff under the circumstances. The court considered the expert opinions regarding the effect of the bollards on the wear patterns on the grass and the feasibility and cost of installing a concrete transition to mitigate the risk.

The court found that the bollards, installed for parking regulation rather than for highway maintenance, had indeed caused the worn tracks and the significant height difference on the footpath. This finding was based on the expert evidence that pedestrians tended to walk between the bollards, creating well-worn paths. The court held that the council, while exempt from liability for non-feasance concerning the maintenance of the highway, could be liable for misfeasance if it acted for a purpose unrelated to highway maintenance. The council had failed to take reasonable steps to address the dangerous condition created by the bollards, thus breaching its duty of care. The court concluded that the council was liable for the plaintiff’s injuries and awarded her damages in the amount of $23,750.00.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established