RMIT International University Vietnam

LAW
2447 – Commercial Law

Student Name Kha Le Thi Thanh Tam

Student ID s3878220
Lecturer Son Nguyen
Class Group Number Group 2
Word count 760

Assignment 1: Individual-Case Note

 I. Introduction

On 25th August 2014, the case named Rankilor v City of South Perth was performed at District
Court of Western Australia by the judge Bowden DCJ. This case note will analyze and evaluate
the adjudication of the judge based on his application of legal rules.

II. Legal issues

In this case, the plaintiff is Ms. Rankilor and the defendant is the City of South Perth. On 18th
March 2012, the plaintiff was walking on a pathway at 1 Angelo Street, South Perth when she
accidentally stumbled and fell after tripping over a protruding paver. This accident led to her
injuries which were split lip and maybe losing consciousness. Ms. Rankilor finally sued the City
for not ensuring safe and even path surface and not adhering to the ‘tree’ and ‘footpath’ program.
There are two main legal issues: ‘Did the City owe Ms. Rankilor a duty of care (DOC)?’[1],
‘Whether the City breached DOC to Rankilor’[2]. The subordinate legal issue ‘Could the City
make contributory negligence defense against Rankilor’[3] was taken into consideration as well.

III. Analysis

For issue [1], the judge concluded that the City did not owe a DOC to Ms. Rankilor although the
City had a responsibility to keep the footpath safe for pedestrians to avoid foreseeable risk of
harm, the City was not accountable for guaranteeing pedestrian’s safety in every situation1.
However, to strengthen the judgment, he should have indicated the relationship between the City
and Rankilor was not fell into any recognized categories of DOC, nor the neighbor test was
satisfied.

To determine issue [2], the judge considered the required standard of care with four aspects
based on s5B(2)(a)-(d)2: the probability of harm, the magnitude of harm, the cost of taking
precaution to prevent the harm, the usefulness of the activity to the society. As regards the
probability of risk, the judge stated that the probability was low which I agree with since people
would keep their eyes on the pathway with reasonable care. However, I disagree with his
argument that the likely seriousness of harm was minimal, the judge’s conclusion was not
sufficient since he just considered the case that pedestrians walk at low speed. Tripping on a

1
Gondoline Pty Ltd v Hansford [2002] WASCA 214

2
Civil Liability Act 2002 s5B
protruding paver and falling can cause some injuries, he should have listed several forms of
injury that could occur such as lacerations, dislocation, or minor fractures. Hence, I believe the
magnitude of harm is medium. The judge’s determination about the cost of taking precautions
was appropriate and relatively convincing. He asserted the City would incur some additional
costs; however, he should have emphasized that examining 230-240 kilometers path length with
17,000 trees was a difficult and time-consuming process to make the argument clearer and more
robust. Moreover, by applying s5F3 and s5N4, he made a logical argument that ordinary people
would perceive that walking on a flat surface may be uneven and may lead them to fall and be
injured, and it was an obvious risk to Rankilor as she did not have evidence showing she was
unaware of the risk. He also stated a reasonable person in the defendant’s position was right to
expect people to use reasonable care by observing and noticing the hazards on the sidewalks and
this is consistent with Brodie v Singleton Shire Council; Ghantous v Hawkesbury CityCouncil
(2001)5. Besides, the judge relied on The Town of MosmanPark v Tait (2005)6 to make a logical
determination that Rankilor could not accuse the City of breaching the DOC as she had no
evidence to show the City did not comply with their program. As for the social utility, I strongly
concur with his statement that paved pathways have high social usefulness in the community.
Overall, the judge convincingly concluded that the City did not breach the DOC to Ms. Rankilor
when considering all of the factors.

I completely agree with the judge’s conclusion that Ms. Rankilor was contributorily negligent to
her injuries as formed in Joslyn v Berryman (2003)7 since she did not take sufficient care of her
safety and failed to carefully observe the pathway to avoid the uneven paver. Furthermore, she
was travelling on dry, clear day during the daytime, therefore, it was easy to notice and avoid the
protruding paver.

IV. Conclusion

In conclusion, the judge made a reasonable and convincing verdict that the defendant was not
liable for the plaintiff’s harm and Ms. Rankilor was contributorily negligent to her incident.

3
Civil Liability Act 2002 s5F

4
Civil Liability Act 2002 s5N

5
Brodie v Singleton Shire Council; Ghantous v Hawkesbury CityCouncil (2001) 206 CLR 512

6
The Town of MosmanPark v Tait [2005] WASC 124

7
Joslyn v Berryman (2003) 214 CLR 552
Generally, he applied the legal rules and reached the conclusion correctly and persuasively,
however, he must clarify some statements to make them more comprehensive and forceful.

V. Bibliography

A. Legislation

Civil Liability Act 2002 s5B

Civil Liability Act 2002 s5N

Civil Liability Act 2002 s5F

B. Case law

Brodie v Singleton Shire Council; Ghantous v Hawkesbury CityCouncil (2001) 206 CLR 512

Gondoline Pty Ltd v Hansford [2002] WASCA 214

Joslyn v Berryman (2003) 214 CLR 552

The Town of MosmanPark v Tait [2005] WASC 124