read more - Mullins Lawyers

INSURANCE l Issue No. 22 l Cliff fall victim fails to recover damages
June 2015
In the recent case of Morris v Redland City Council &
Anor1, Mr Andrew Morris sought damages from the
Redland City Council (the Council) after falling down an
unfenced cliff when visiting North Stradbroke Island.
However, his Honour Martin J found in favour of the
RCC. This eNews investigates why.
lost his balance and fell 20 metres down a cliff and onto
the beach. The Plaintiff suffered severe injuries including
paraplegia. He later said he did not know the cliff was
right in front of him.
The Plaintiff and a group of friends had rented a house
for a few days at Point Lookout for a 40th birthday
celebration. On the day of arrival, the friends had dinner
and drinks at the house. The Plaintiff consumed at least
eight beers over dinner.
The Plaintiff argued the Council was negligent in
failing to erect warning signs alerting the public to
the location of the cliff face, or warning them not
to walk through the thick vegetation.
At about 9.00pm the Plaintiff and two other friends left the
house to look for steps down to the beach. There was a
plan to go fishing the next morning and they wanted to
have a look at the beach.
Some distance from the house, and across the road
towards the beach, there was a wooden boardwalk about
three metres wide which had a wooden fence running for
about 20 metres along its eastern boundary. This fence
was designed to prevent a person walking directly off the
pedestrian crossing, over the boardwalk and into the
vegetated area.
The Plaintiff alleged that near the wooden boardwalk
there was a pathway on the headland that ran into the
bush and down into a grassy area. The Plaintiff and his
friends assumed it was the path to the steps leading to
the beach. The only illumination available to the three
men was a headlamp worn by the Plaintiff and a
handheld torch taken by one of the other men.
After travelling down the path and stopping to drink more
beer, the group reached a point where the Plaintiff
thought he saw steps in the distance. As he got up to
take a closer look, he grabbed hold of a tree and leant
out to get a better view. The tree snapped. The Plaintiff
1
[2015] QSC135
Mullins Lawyers l eNews Publications l Page 1
The Plaintiff brought legal proceedings for personal
injuries against the Council. Quantum had been agreed
prior to the trial. The sole remaining issue was liability.
One of the other men returned to the island
approximately two months after the incident with the
Plaintiff’s parents. The man attempted to find the path
they walked along however later admitted under cross
examination that “we struggled to find one”. The man was
photographed forcing his way through heavy bush and
other vegetation which could not realistically be
described as a “path”.
The Council gave evidence that no paths had been
created by the Council in the area described by the men.
Evidence was given of signs indicating the actual stairs to
the beach however they were further down the road. The
men did not see these signs.
Martin J made the following findings of fact:
 There was no path, manmade or otherwise, running
through the bush to the cliff.
 The Plaintiff had wandered through a thickly
vegetated area about which he knew nothing and had
done so on a dark night.
 The Plaintiff was aware there was a cliff in front of
him. That is why he took hold of the tree when leaning
out to look at what he thought were steps.
The Plaintiff argued the Council was negligent in failing to
erect warning signs alerting the public to the location of
the cliff face, or warning them not to walk through the
thick vegetation.
The Plaintiff and his friends were determined to
force their way through the bush and may have
continued looking for the steps, even if there had
been warning signs.
Any duty owed by the Council was confined to taking
reasonable care to avoid foreseeable risk or harm to the
Plaintiff while he was at Point Lookout. There was no
evidence that the Council was aware of anyone else
suffering injury after entering the headland, or that
Council personnel had observed or encouraged people
to walk through the area. Martin J did not consider it
reasonably foreseeable that a person, at night, would
walk from the boardwalk and cross through the headland
bushes, reach the top of the cliff, and fall from it.
Even if warning signs had been put up at this location,
they would not have been illuminated and could not have
been seen at night. In any case, the Plaintiff and his
friends were determined to force their way through the
bush and may have continued looking for the steps, even
if there had been warning signs.
The Plaintiff’s claim failed on the question of liability and
was dismissed. The inability to prove the existence of any
recognisable path was an insurmountable problem for the
Plaintiff and was fatal to his arguments on foreseeability
of harm.
Daniel Sullivan
Associate
Mullins Lawyers
t +61 7 3224 0358
dsullivan@mullinslaw.com.au
Cameron Seymour
Partner
Mullins Lawyers
t +61 7 3224 0360
cseymour@mullinslaw.com.au
Mullins Lawyers l eNews Publications l Page 2