Grierson v ACT [2011] ACTSC 113

Material Facts:
Plaintiff was walking along a footpath in slippers and tripped, suffering injuries
that amounted to $55,000 in medical bills.
There was a 40 to 50 mm height difference between the two pavers of the
footpath which constitutes a trip hazard.
Plaintiff had been a resident in the house for 3 months at the time of the fall but
rarely left the house.
In 2005 there was a complaint about the same pavers being a trip hazard. The
typical procedure was to do a temporary repair and then do a permanent repair
12 months later. No further repairs were done after the first repair in 2005. The
repair that was done was no longer satisfactory to eliminate the trip hazard.
Others who have known the trip hazard exists have tripped on it in the past.
The weather was clear and there was nothing obstructing the plaintiffs vision of
the footpath and was aware that the footpaths were not always even, however
was not aware of the trip hazard in question.