The Owners - Strata Plan 31337 v Grace Balacco

2025/00306608

PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE (other) – Ms Grace Balacco claimed for damages in negligence against the Owners of Strata Plan 31337 (the Owners) for personal injuries which she sustained as a result of a trip and fall over a concrete speed hump in a semi open, above-ground car park located in Bondi Junction on 18 May 2023 – the property was owned by the Owners – the Owners’ case under part 1A of the CLA was that the risk of tripping and falling on the subject speed hump was an obvious one, thereby invoking s 5F of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) (CLA) – the primary judge ordered judgment for Ms Balacco in the sum of $385,484.78 – whether the primary judge erred in finding that the lighting was inadequate and darkish at the time of Ms Balacco’s trip and fall (if that is what she so found) and ought to have found that the lighting was adequate at the time of Ms Balacco’s trip and fall – whether the primary judge erred in finding that the risk of harm would not have been obvious to a reasonable person in the position of Ms Balacco within the meaning of section 5F of the CLA and ought to have found that the risk of harm constituted an obvious risk and that the Owners did not owe a duty to warn – whether the primary judge erred in finding that it was irrelevant that there had been no reports of any prior incident, and in so finding, she erroneously failed to have any or proper regard to section 5B(2)(a) of the CLA – whether the primary judge erred in finding that a reasonable person in the Owners’ position would have taken the precaution of painting the speed hump with a contrasting colour such that section 5B(1)(c) was satisfied, and ought to have found that the Owners were not negligent in failing to take such a precaution – whether the primary judge erred in finding that the absence of contrasting paint on the speed hump was a necessary condition of the occurrence of Ms Balacco’s injuries such that section 5D(1)(a) was satisfied and ought to have found that the absence of contrasting paint on the speed hump was not a necessary condition of the occurrence of Ms Balacco’s injuries – whether the primary judge erred in finding no contributory negligence on the part of Ms Balacco and ought to have found contributory negligence on her part – whether the trial judge erred in her assessment of damages.