Voli v Inglewood Shire Council [1963] HCA 15

High Court of Australia Dixon C.J. Windeyer and Owen JJ. Voli v Inglewood Shire Council [1963] HCA 15

ORDER Appeal allowed with costs to be paid by the respondents. Judgment of the Supreme Court set aside and in lieu thereof order:

(a) that the plaintiff recover from the first named and second named defendants the sum of £1,531 11s. 6d. as damages and also his costs (including any reserved costs);

(b) that the action against the third named defendant be dismissed with costs (including any reserved costs) to be paid by the first named defendant;

(c) that upon either the first named or the second named defendant satisfying by payment to the plaintiff its or his said liability to the plaintiff for damages and costs, or any part thereof, it or he be entitled to recover from the other one half of the sum so paid to the plaintiff.

Cur. adv. vult.

The following written judgments were delivered:—

1963, May 29 Dixon C.J.

This case presents an unusual aspect of the general problem relating to the safety of structures which has so much troubled the courts of late years. There are two defendants respondents. One, the Inglewood Shire Council, which is sued as the proprietor of a structure let for entertainment or enjoyment for brief periods. The other defendant respondent is the architect who designed the structure and may be regarded as responsible for its not proving capable of supporting the weight which in the event proved to be required of it on the particular occasion. I take the view that the proprietor of the structure, the municipality, which let it to the association one of whose members, having been injured, sues as plaintiff, was under a duty to show ordinary care in seeing that it was reasonably safe for the use to which it was known it would be put. I think Brown J. in his judgment showed clearly that he believed that the required standard of care was not attained in providing directions or warnings or some limitation as to the weight which the platform could bear. In my opinion the architect was under a duty of care expressed in terms of ordinary negligence so to design the platform as to make it safe for any burden reasonably to be expected, that is to say, if the platform were employed in the ordinary way for supporting human beings mounting thereon, without any violent or unusual movement.