The court's decision came after Ms Leibbrandt argued that the city had been negligent in situating fence posts too close to the pathway, in defiance of the Austroads Guide to Road Design. Conversely, the city defended its stance, suggesting the incident was a result of Ms Leibbrandt's carelessness while navigating her e-scooter. Judge Alan Troy dismissed her claim, citing that although the risk was foreseeable and not insignificant, it remained minimal for anyone exercising reasonable care.
The accident occurred as Ms Leibbrandt moved to the left to accommodate a cyclist passing from behind, striking a fence post and injuring her wrist. Judge Troy noted her speed of approximately 20-25 km/h on a straight stretch of shared pathway was excessive, contributing to the mishap. The city's defence highlighted that Ms Leibbrandt steered her scooter into the pole during daylight, reiterating that the responsibility lay on the rider's actions.
In its ruling, the court outlined that the Austroads guide, heavily relied upon by Ms Leibbrandt for her case, serves as a general framework rather than a strict mandate. Judge Troy emphasised that road authorities could adapt practices based on local conditions and policies, thus negating negligence claims solely based on deviations from such guidelines.
This verdict underscores the legal principle that local councils are not inherently liable for every accident occurring within public spaces. However, a commentary from law firm Hall & Wilcox advises that authorities should continually evaluate potential hazards, adequately document decisions, and refer to established standards. The judgment endorses a pragmatic approach to public safety, where reasonable measures are expected rather than absolute perfection.
Legal experts suggest this case will likely influence future claims of this nature, potentially shaping how liability is assessed in similar circumstances involving public infrastructure and shared pathways.
