RMIT Classification: Trusted

O RMIT
UNIVERSITY

ASSESSMENT TASK 1 (CASE NOTE) COVER SHEET

1. CASE NOTE DETAILS:

1. Course Code: LAW2447 (Commercial Law)

2. Name:

3. Student ID:

4. Tutorial Group:

5. Lecturer's name:

11. CASE NOTE INSTRUCTIONS:

l) The deadline, late penalty policy, referencing guide, marking rubric, and other detailed instructions
regarding the Assessment Task I - Case Note can be found on the following Canvas page:
https://nnit.instmcture.com/courses/103678/assigmnents/698058

2) This is an assessment and you should work independently. Conespondence to lecturers directly
or impliedly seeking sample answers of the assessment question or asking for a review of a
draft will not be attended.

3) Please be advised that if you send an email to your lecturer outside the business hours, you
should not expect to receive a response until the next business day at the earliest.

4) The word limit for the Case Note is 700 words (+-10%; appendices, references, footnotes, etc. are not
counted). The examiner will stop reading once reaching this word limit. Issues covered in the excessive
palt will not be counted and will be marked as "missing". You are going to lose credit for these missing
issues. Thus, please write precisely and succinctly to cover all relevant issues within the word limit.

5) Lecturers' expectations for this assessment are set out clearly in the Rubric and Case Note Guide. To do
well in this assessment, please read these documents carefully and follow the requirements therein.

Case Note Ouestion:

Some commentators criticize that the case (judgment) below was wrongly decided. Others disagree and
think that it was convincingly decided. Please give your own opinion about the case (whether it was
convincingly decided by the judge or not).

In discussing the case, please follow the requirements and instructions set out in the Case Note Guide &
Case
Note Marking Rubric which can be found on Canvas.
 RMIT Classification: Trusted

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN CIVIL

CITATION . GLADSTONE -v- PUBLIC TRANSPORT AUTHORITY OF WESTERN
AUSTRALIA [2022] WADC 6
CORAM/JUDGE MACLEAN DCJ
BETMÆEN : JAMES WILLIAM GLADSTONE
PlaintiffAND
PUBLIC TRANSPORT AUTHORITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Defendant
MACLEAN DCJ:
The slip
In 2014 William James Gladstone was living in Bassendean and working in West Perth as a health and
safety manager. His routine included driving from his home to the Bassendean Train Station,
parking there and then taking the train to work.
2 On 26 May 2014 Gladstone anived at the Bassendean Train Station and looked for a place to park
He noticed construction work and saw a temporary car park (Temporary Car Park) adjacent to
Prospector Loop. Mr Gladstone parked there. The Temporary Car Park was different to the main
car park. It was unmarked and the surface was blue metal gravel. The main car park was
bituminized with marked parking spaces. This was the first time Mr Gladstone had used the
Temporary Car Park. Mr Gladstone got out of his car, orange bunting presented as a barricade to a
footpath, and he tumed to walk toward the road. Crossing the threshold between the Temporary
Car Park and the road he looked for traffic and stepped with his left foot on the verge onto the road
with his light foot from the Temporary' Car Park and his light foot rolled and nvisted and strained
his light ankle. The inside of his foot came up and the outside of his foot came down. N'fr
Gladstone felt the stone under his shoe. There was an issue as to whether Mr Gladstone had said
that he stood on one stone or more than one blue metal stone. Nothing tums on this.
3 I find that Mr Gladstone was an accurate witness.
4 After he rolled his ankle Mr Gladstone partially collapsed. He leant on his car for support to keep
the weight off his ankle and he experienced intense pain from his ankle to his knee. Mr Gladstone
composed himself. He was distraught. He was saying to himself 'I can't go through this again; I
can't go through this again'. Wiile leamng against his car Mr Gladstone saw some blue metal
gravel on the road and saw the blue metal gravel spread stmted from the roadside edge of the kerb
and extended 20 cm or 30 cm into the road. The blue metal gravel ranged in size from 1 cm - 5 cm
in diameter.
5 Mr Gladstone drove home to treat his leg and spent about two hours doing this. He strapped his
ankle, changed his business shoes for safety boots and retumed to the area where he had injured
himself and he took a photograph of that area.
6 After reporting the matter to constmction workers at the train station and getting the contact
infonnation for the project manager of the construction site, Gladstone went to work.
7 A month later Mr Gladstone retumed and took photographs of where he parked.
The iniurv and the treatment - The ankle prior to 26 May 2014
8 Gladstone was treated by a physiotherapist on three occasions. He also received treatment from his general
practitioner Dr Jooste and was prescribed anti-inflammatory and pain medication. He also received an MRI.

9 Dr Jooste is an experienced general practitioner. He examined Mr Gladstone on 29 May 2014. Mr

Gladstone's ankle was strapped following treatment by a physiotherapist. Dr Jooste removed the
strapping and saw that Alfr Gladstone had a small effusion of the ankle. Dr Jooste considered:
Any effiusion of the ankle is a significant one. That's a collection of fluid within the joint space. He was
tender of the ligaments on the lateral, the outside, aspect of the ankle, most noticeably at the anterolateral
ligaments called the anterior talofibular ligament, which is a common place for injury with lolled ankles
he was also tender at the outside of the calf along with a gmup of muscles called the peroneal muscles ffat
extend a tendon down to the lateral aspect of the foot. The two injuries are often co-existent.
 RMIT Classification: Trusted

10 Dr Jooste's opinion was the objective signs that he observed were consistent with Mr Gladstone's
symptoms and that Mr Gladstone complained of those symptoms on the first examination and tlfs
consistency between the objective signs and symptomology remained on the tlürd and final
occasion on 2 November 2015 when Dr Jooste saw N'fr Gladstone. On the third examination the
recorded symptoms were continued discomfort on the lateral aspect of his ankle, more with
prolonged use and prolonged standing, a reduced range of movement, loss of utility of the ankle
and foot causing psychological distress and the loss of enjoyment of recreational activities.
11 N'fr Gladstone saw Dr Jooste on three occasions. Amongst the advice and treatment Dr Jooste offered he
recommended Mr Gladstone see the orthopaedic surgeon, Dr Reza Salleh, for review. Dr Salleh had
previously successfully treated an injury that Mr Gladstone suffered to his right ankle.
12 That treatment included surge1Y and substantial rehabilitation. Mr Gladstone, although pleased by the
results of the treatment, did not wish to experience a similar course of treatment and was fearful of seeing Dr
Salleh again. Additionally, Mr Gladstone has a phobia of needles. This phobia increased the difficulty and
fear N'fr Gladstone experienced contemplating a fillther treatment with Dr Salleh.
13 Apart from review by medical specialists for the course of these proceedings, Mr Gladstone did not seek any
other medical assistance. A lengthy consultation with Dr Jooste in September 2015 was preceded by a
request for a medical report for these proceedings.
14 I accept Dr Jooste's evidence.
Consequences after 26 May 2014
15 Mr Gladstone experienced difficulties following the slip. These included walking for a distance
over 50 m before experiencing pain to his ankle. Pain in swimming, pain which prevented him
from playmg squash or scuba diving. Alfr Gladstone now avoids any physical activity where he
believes he may roll his ankle. He now undertakes fewer activities with his daughter and avoids
social interactions and sports in the community.
16 Mr Gladstone is now employed in the Pilbara with a miner. Not all his work is in an office. He
does go on site and does walk. He actively avoids areas where there is rubble and describes
himself as overly cautious. Mr Gladstone's self-described caution and ankle soreness were the
main clinical presentations that he presented to Alfr Hmper, a medical practitioner and
experienced occupational and public health physician.
17 N'fr Gladstone's account of the rating ofthe pain when he saw the physiotherapist as being 2 1 2 - 3
out of 10 differed from the account Mr Harper recalled being given in April 2017 as it being 5 out
of 10. Nothing tums on this. I accept that the disability was as described by Dr Halver as 'one
where he walks for a period and standing after a period of tnne so in fact his problems come after
that activity'.
18 Mr Gladstone's injumy was an offhopaedic injury. He did not seek treatment from an offhopaedic surgeon. I
accept the experiences of his previous surgery and his recuperation and his needle phobia positively
dissuaded him from seeking orthopaedic review.
19 Mr Gladstone's physical injury brought another impainnent into sharp relief. Accordingly, Mr
Gladstone was reviewed by the psychiatlist, Dr De Felice. Dr Edward-Smith who is also a
psychiatrist was engaged by the Public Transport Authority (PTA) to review Mr Gladstone.
20 Dr De Felice's evidence, which I accept, and which I did not understand was contradicted, challenged
or overwhelmed by Dr Edward-Smith's evidence, was, Gladstone has a phobia of re-injufing his
right ankle and that he, at the time of Dr De Felice's review on 2 May 2019 continued to display
ongoing symptoms of his phobia. Dr De Felice's opinion was that the phobia was precipitated by
the accident of 2014. To the extent that Dr De Felice's evidence and Dr Edward-Smith's evidence
differed as to the cost of future medical treatment I preferred Dr De Felice's evidence. Dr
EdwardsSmith conceded that Dr De Felice's conclusion was based on his assessment and was
valid; just as her view was based on her assessment and in her view was also valid.
21 A phobia is a recognised psychiatric condition. I am satisfied Gladstone is left with a residual
disability of 7.5% arising from this condition. I am satisfied that this phobia is in pan influenced
by his earlier injury. Such seems apparent from his almost contemporaneous expression of dread
 RMIT Classification: Trusted

following the accident. I cannot find to which degree, but I do find that the major contlibution was
most likely the accident of 26 May 2014.
22 Dr Goodheart a medical practitioner of 35 years' experience and a consultant neurologist for 30 years
considered that Mr Gladstone had a soft tissue injury to his ankle. There was no neurological finding of
relevance to this claim.
The Public Trans Authmi
23 The PTA had the care, management and control of the Bassendean Train Station. It constructed
the Temporary' Car Park and was the occupier of the train station and the Temporary Car Park.
24 The PTA denied:
That Mr Gladstone slipped on blue metal gravel in the Temporary Car Park.
If he did, it was on Prospector Loop, a road adjacent to the car park.
It was not the occupier of the road.
Mr Gladstone suffered the injuries.
25 Three potential sources of legal duty afise from the common law, the Occupiers' Liability Act
1985 (WA) (OLA) and Civil Liability Act 2002 (WA) (CLA).
26 The fimdamental issue in this confluence of claims and prospective liabilities was, as explained by
counsel for the PTA:
whether the presence of some blue metal at the side of a temporary car park and on a road way was or was
not a hazard of such a level as required the PTA to take some steps to remove it because otherwise it
posed foreseeable risk of injury to N'lr Gladstone.

27 Mr Gladstone's claim against the PTA was in negligence and under the common law and breach of
a statutory duty of care under the OLA. The way that the case was presented the palties agreed that
the outcome would not be different whether the claim was in negligence or under the OLA.
Pleadings
28 The particular allegation ofnegligence and breach ofs 5 of the OLA, taken from but not quoted
from Mr Gladstone's statement of claim is that the PTA was negligent in failing to:
institute an adequate procedure involving inspection and maintenance of the premises to ensure it
was safe for pedestrians;
(b) ensure a safe walkway from the premises to the Bassendean Train Station; designate staff
cleaning duties to minimise the risk of slipping hazards on the premises;
(d) erect wammg signs to wam Mr Gladstone that there was debris on the ground posing a slipping
hazard; and
observe the existence ofthe slipping hazard on the ground and take immediate action to
avoid a slipping hazard to Mr Gladstone.
And that the PTA was in breach of its statutory duty by failing to:
wam of dangers mherent in premises;
(g) take reasonable precautions to ensure that Mr Gladstone would not suffer injury or damage;
(h) consider the likely gravity of possible injury to Mr Gladstone; and
take steps to wam Gladstone of the risk of injury in circumstances where it would be
easy to wam of the danger.
29 The PTA position, taken from but not quoted from its defence, was that:
it was a public body as defined in s 5U ofthe CIA;
(b) it is responsible for the care and management of all public train stations and bus stops
throughout Westem Australia;
 RMIT Classification: Trusted

sweeping roads is not part of its usual activities and that it would have had to pay for a
street sweeper to sweep the road frequently and regularly;
(d) pursuant to s SW of the CLA the fimctions it was required to exercise were limited by the
financial and other resources that were reasonably available to it for exercising those
fimctions;
the probability that hann would eventuate as a result of a person such as
Gladstone slipping on blue metal gravel on the road adjacent to the Temporary Car
Park was low because:
the risk was obvious; the Temporary Car Park was constructed of
blue metal gravel; blue metal gravel surfaces are common in
outdoor areas in Perth;
c. blue metal gravel on the ground adjacent to a blue metal gravel surface is
common in outdoor areas in Perth;
Alfr Gladstone's accident occun•ed in the moming during daylight hours;
members of the public including Gladstone could have seen the blue metal
gravel on the road during daylight hours;
it was obvious to any reasonable person in Mr Gladstone's position who
saw blue metal gravel on the road that walking on the gravel presented
a foreseeable risk of slipping and injumy•,
prior to 26 May 2014, the PTA was not aware of any other person slipping on
the blue metal gravel in the Temporary' Car Park or adjacent to the Temporary
Car Park;
(iii) the blue metal gravel on the road was on the edge of the road next to the kerb
and there were few pieces of blue metal gravel on the road and those pieces
could easily be avoided by a pedestrian; and
(iv) the Temporary Car Park was in place for no longer than six months.
a person in the position of the PTA, being a public body with limited resources, would
not have taken any precautions in response to the risk of a person slipping on blue metal
gravel on the road because the risk was obvious, there was low probability of injury and
the burden of sweeping the debris from the road on a frequent and regular basis was
greater than the probability that hann would eventuate;
(g) if blue metal gravel on the ground posed a slipping hazard (which was denied), the PTA
said that the danger was an obvious risk to members of the public, including Mr
Gladstone in accordance with the definition of 'obvious risk' set out in s 5F of the CLA;
and
(h) pursuant to s 50 of the CLA the PTA did not owe Alfr Gladstone a duty to wam of the
obvious risk of slipping on blue metal gravel on the road.
How was the in •u caused?
30 I am satisfied that N'fr Gladstone suffered an injtuy and that he did so on Prospector Loop adjacent
to the Temporary Car Park as he described.
31 I am satisfied that the injury took place when Mr Gladstone stepped with his right foot onto the
road and that this foot met loose blue metal gravel which was scattered on the road.
32 I am also satisfied that the blue metal gravel had spilled over from the Temporary' Car Park.
33 I am also satisfied that N'fr Gladstone's light foot met blue metal gravel like that he saw later in the
day when he retumed to the scene. I am satisfied his ankle inverted and he experienced intense
pain and agony following which he rested before going home to treat his ankle.
Obvious lisk
34 Section 50 of the CLA provides:
 RMIT Classification: Trusted

so. No duty to warn of obvious risk

(1) A person (the defendant) does not owe a duty of care to another person (the plaintiff) to wam
of an obvious risk to the plaintiff.

35 Section 5M provides that in div 6 'obvious risk' has the meaning given by s 5E. In tum, s 5E states
that 'obvious risk' has the meaning given by s 5F. Section 5F then provides:
Term used: obvious risk

(1) For the purposes of this Division, an obvious risk to a person who suffers hann is a
risk that, in the circumstances, would have been obvious to a reasonable person in die
position of diat person.

(2) Obvious risks include risks that are patent or a matter of common knowledge.

(3) A risk of something occurring can be an obvious risk even though it has a low
probability of occuning.

(4) A risk can be an obvious risk even if the risk (or a condition or circumstance that
gives rise to the risk) is not prominent, conspicuous, or physically observable.

36 Subject to s 50 (2), on its proper construction s 50 removes any duty of care to wam of an obvious risk.
37 I adopt and apply the principles as enunciated by the Court of Appeal in Nikolich v Webb [2020]
WASCA 169 [90] - [92].
38 I do not accept that a reasonable man in Mr Gladstone's position would expect to find a finn solid
bituminized surface underfoot at the tnne that he was walking from the Temporary Car Park to the
road and at the time that he entered upon the road. It was obvious that blue metal gravel would slip
in the way that it did in this case.
39 There was nothing unusually, innately, or slippery about the Temporary Car Park or the
area where N'fr Gladstone slipped.
40 Mr Gladstone and a reasonable person in his position, exercising ordinary perception, intelligence
and judgrnent, would have known that there was constmction taking place, that the car park was
temporary, that he was walking across a Temporary Car Park which had a blue metal gravel
surface and that blue metal gravel moves.
41 Based on my findings of fact I am satisfied that a reasonable person in the position of Mr
Gladstone would have known:
A dlY sealed car park without loose blue metal gravel is safe to walk.
2. A car park covered with blue metal gravel, presents at least a moderate risk of slipping.
42 To walk across the Temporary' Car Park safely, it would be necessary to pay attention to where
one was walking and tread carefully.
43 These observations are all matters of common knowledge and patently obvious to any adult with
experience of walking outdoors. I am satisfied that the risk of slipping and suffering significant
injmy on a pmt of the Temporary Car Park on 26 May 2014 was an obvious risk within the
meaning of s SF of the CLA. It follows that because of the operation of s 50 of the CLA, the PTA
did not owe a duty of care to Mr Gladstone to wam him of that obvious risk
44 A blue metal gravel surface is a hazard of an ordinary character that a person walking around the
Temporary Car Park could be expected to encounter and could be expected to watch out for.
Dutv of care owed
45 The PTA owed Gladstone a duty of care, at common law, such as to prevent, as reasonably
practicable, the foreseeable risk of injumy or hann to Gladstone as a member of the public who
interacted, that is, crossed, stepped or walked in, over or adjacent to the Temporary Car Park.
46 The PTA also owed a duty under s 5 of the OLA to exercise reasonable care to avoid risk of
physical inju1Y to Gladstone by reason of any danger due to the state of the Temporary Car Park
or to anything done or omitted to be done by them.
47 Section 5 ofthe OLA provides:
 RMIT Classification: Trusted

Duty of care of occupier

(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3) the care which an occupier ofpremises is required by
reason of the occupation or control of the premises to show towards a person entering on the
premises in respect of dangels which are due to the state of the premises or to anyffing done or
omitted to be done on the premises and for which the occupier is by law responsible shall, except
in so far as he is entitled to and does extend, restrict, modify or exclude by agl•eement or
otherwise, his obligations towards ffat person, be such care as in all the circumstances of the
case is reasonable to see that that person will not suffer injury or damage by reason of any such
danger.

48 The PTA admitted it occupied the Temporary' Car Park.

49 Section 5(4) of the OLA provides:
(4) Without restricting the generality of subsection (1), in determining whether an occupier of
premises has discharged his duty of care, consideration shall be given to (a) the gravity
and likelihood offfe probable injury, and the circumstances of the entry onto the premises; and

(c) the nature offfe premises; and

(d) the knowledge which the occupier of premises has or ought to have of the likelihood
of persons or property being on the premises; and the
age ofthe person entering the premises; and the
ability of the person entering die premises to
appreciate die danger; and
the burden on the occupier of eliminating the danger or protecting the person entering the
premises from the danger as compared to the risk of the danger to the person.

50 The stalting point is whether the blue metal gravel was a danger which was due to the state of the
premises. I consider that there was a danger that a pedestrian may slip, fall or injure themselves
after stepping on blue metal gravel.
51 The second question is whether the PTA took such care as in all the circumstances of the case was
reasonable to see that no person suffered injury due to the danger, considering the matters in s 5(4)
of the OLA.
52 Any fall onto a hard sulface may be considered to have potentially serious results, in tenns of
physical injulies and consequential losses.
53 Section 5(4)(g) ofthe OLA is pmticularly relevant in this scenario.
54 The principles in s 5B of the CLA are also relevant:
General principles

(1) A person is not liable for hann caused by that person's fault in to take precautions against a
risk of haml unless -

(a) the risk was foreseeable (ffat is, it is a risk of which the person knew or
ought to have known); and the risk was not insignificant; and

(c) in the circumstances, a reasonable person in the person's position would have
taken those precautions.

(2) In determining whether a reasonable person would have taken precautions against a
risk of harm, the court is to consider the following (amongst other relevant things) (a)
the probability that the harn would occur if care welt not taken; the likely
seriousness ofthe harm;

(c) the burden of taking precautions to avoid the risk of harm;

(d) the social utility of the activity that creates the risk of harm.
55 I find the risk of a slip and a fall precipitated by standing on blue metal gravel was foreseeable.
The precise mechanism of any and every fall was not foreseeable.
 RMIT Classification: Trusted

56 umat was a reasonable response to the risk? And what was the burden of otherwise taking
precautions against the risk, compared to that risk?
57 I consider that the likelihood of an accident at the TemporalY Car Park was very small, due to
several facts: Blue metal gravel surfaces are commonplace; construction at train stations is
commonplace and temporalY car parks are commonplace. Thus, the risk itself was of a low
probability of occuning. The potential injury from a fall could valY from minor to serious.
58 The common law and statutory duties did extend to ensuring that the loose blue metal gravel
which comprised the surface of the Temporary Car Park did not spill over onto Prospector Loop
and pose a risk of injtuy or hann to members of the public including Gladstone who walked on the
part of Prospector Loop immediately adjacent to the Temporary Car Park.
59 Those duties extended to ensuring that blue metal gravel which spilt from the surface of the
Temporary Car Park was cleared in a timely manner. This is a matter of balancing. A single stone
would not require a rapid response. Equally, if a large volume of blue metal gravel spilled from
the Temporary Car Park this would increase the need for action that the care required.
Did the Public Transport Authoritv breach the required standard of care? WInat precautions should they

60 The common law and statutory duties respond to dangers that are a condition that presents a
foreseeable risk of injury.
61 It was foreseeable that loose blue metal gravel may scatter onto the roadway. Obviously if a
person were to step on a piece of blue metal gravel that person may roll their ankle or lose their
balance.
62 The risk in this case that Mr Gladstone might step onto scattered blue metal gravel on the roadway
was amplified, since there was orange bunting in place at the front of the Tempormy Car Park that
either worked as a physical ban•ier to the footpath which ran from the Temporary Car Park to the
station or as a pedestrian disincentive to access the footpath or to investigate whether there was a
passage through to it. However, there was a risk if there were no banier to pedestlian traffic
moving the other way over the car park to access the footpath.
63 Certainly, the risk of stepping onto scattered blue metal gravel on the roadway and suffering Injury
in the way Gladstone did was foreseeable.
64 It was even possible for the blue metal gravel to become camouflaged with the surface of the road.
65 Having regard to the burden on the PTA by taking precautions to avoid the risk of hann I do not
accept Mr Gladstone's submission that a reasonable person in the PTA's position would have
inspected and maintained the Temporary' Car Park to prevent the blue metal gravel from spilling
and wonder how tlüs was possible. A higher step from the car park to the road - which would have
introduced another danger? Ban•icading both sides of the Temporary Car Park or abolishing the
Temporary' Car Park entirely? I do not accept that the PTA should have implemented a system to
ensure that the road was swept and cleared of blue metal gravel. How might this have been done?
By street sweeper patrolling and sweeping the edge of the road; pausing for vehicles and
pedestrians leaving and retuming to their cars and creating a new and different danger?
66 It was obvious that the works were being undertaken. The bunting clearly marked the Temporary
Car Park. It was obvious that the surface of the Temporary Car Park was loose. It was obvious that
blue metal gravel may fall onto the road.
67 I find that a reasonable person in the position of the PTA would not have taken any action in the
circumstances of this case.
68 At the time of the accident the Town of Bassendean was already sweeping the frill town four times
per year. The cost of each sweep is between $11,000 and $12,000. The total cost per year is
between $44,000 and $48,000. WThat was the PTA to do additional to that sweeping?
69 I cannot make a finding on the evidence as to the cost of sweeping services to sweep the road. I am
satisfied that it would not have been as high as $11,000. The call out charge was $100 per hour but
tlüs
 RMIT Classification: Trusted

was the contractors fee only. It is not clear what costs would have been incurred by the PTA and/or
the Toum of Bassendean in checking, calling for and later inspecting the work. It is not clear how
long the work would take, and it is not clear how often it would have to be undertaken.
70 I do not consider that there is evidence to allow me to find, without speculating, that the cost of
having the PTA task one of its employees to manually sweep the small portion of the roadway at
vaying intervals would be even less. It is not clear how often this would be required, or whether
the road would have to be closed for the manual sweeping, how long the manual sweeping would
take and what the hourly rate for an employee to do this work might be if a safe system of work
for the employee could be created having regard to traffic moving both ways and cars enteling and
exiting the TemporalY Car Park.
71 I do not accept that a reasonable person in the position of the PTA would have created a safe
walkway from the Temporary' Car Park to Bassendean Train Station. The existing walk from the
car to the train station by the roadway allowed dlivers access to the road. Opening the bunting
would work to divert pedestrians on the footpath to crossing the footpath to the road over the loose
blue metal gravel exposing them to risk and to more blue metal gravel being spread. Opening the
bunting would work to increase the risk of spreading blue metal gravel to the footpath.
72 The works were temporay. They were not exceptional or unusual.
73 The CLA applies when detennining whether the defendant has breached its duty of care to Alfr
Gladstone. Mr Gladstone bears the onus of proving a breach of duty and must, therefore, prove, on
the balance of probabilities, those matters set out in s 5B(l). The CLA does not modify or supplant
the common law principles which detennine whether a duty of care exists: Department of Housing
and Works v Smith [No 2] [2010] WASCA 25.
74 I do not accept that the PTA breached either its common law or statutory duty of care.
75 Mr Gladstone's claim must be dismissed.
76 If I am wrong in my conclusion that reasonableness required no response to the risk, even though
it was obvious and the reasonable expectation that other people will take care for their own safety
then I would consider that pt IC of the CLA applies to require me to consider that the mnctions
exercised by the PTA are limited by the financial and other resources that are available to it.
77 Blue metal gravel, coming from the Temporary Car Park, would be an ongoing issue while the
works were being undertaken. ms would require regular, perhaps daily, sweeping.
78 The Toum of Bassendean did not sweep the Temporary Car Park or the immediate area in April or
May of2014.
79 There was no specific evidence as to the daily cost of regular or daily sweeping. The evidence was
that in addition to the officer from the Town of Bassendean going to look at the area and making a
decision as to whether cleaning was required, there was an hourly rate of $100 per call out,
according to the engineering works supervisor Clistafa Kim Mann. Mr Mann was employed by the
Town of Bassendean. He was not involved in the PTA's decision-making process about sweeping.
Due to budget restraints he was encouraged to try to limit the number of additional sweeps in the
town.
80 The cost of daily sweeps would be umeasonable having regard to the risk posed by the blue metal
gravel and the probability that the risk could be managed by pedestrians taking care as they walked
through the

Alleged negligence by Mr Gladstone

81 If I am wrong about liability, I am persuaded that Mr Gladstone failed to take care for his own
safety. I believe it is more likely than not that he misjudged his step in the transition from the
driveway to the road, placing his foot on the blue metal gravel. In my view, this is something that a
careful person would be urflikely consciously to choose to do. I believe that he misjudged the
situation, probably unconsciously, stepped on the blue metal gravel, and unfortunately rolled his
ankle. The pleading that he 'failed to take care for his own safety' is thus made out.
82 My conclusions therefore require that Mr Gladstone's claim be dismissed.