THOMPSON v ANSETT TRANSPORT INDUSTRIES (OPERATIONS) PTY LTD [1997] NSWCA 316

THOMPSON v ANSETT TRANSPORT INDUSTRIES (OPERATIONS) PTY LTD

SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES — COURT OF APPEAL

MASON P, HANDLEY JA and SHELLER JA 11 March 1997

[1997] NSWCA 316

Negligence — occupiers liability — appellant injured from running into glass petition at airport — appeal against trial judge finding of no breach of duty of care — whether failure to warn — whether appellant would have rushed into glass petition anyway

Mason P. On 19 June 1989 the appellant was injured when she rushed into a glass wall in the Ansett Terminal at Sydney Airport. The glass wall, or partition, was adjacent to the check in area, running roughly parallel to the queues formed by intending travellers as they wait to check in luggage and obtain boarding passes.

The appellant came with a friend, Ms Harben, and Ms Harben's young son who was aged 8. The two women were there to put the son on a flight to Wagga Wagga which was scheduled to leave at 7am. The appellant made no bones about the fact that she was in a hurry.

The group arrived at the airport at about 6.45am, parked illegally and rushed into the terminal. They chose what appeared to be the shortest queue, but it moved very slowly. Anxiety mounted as the indicator for the flight in question switched from"'now boarding' to 'flight closed.' They got up to the head of the queue. Ms Harben suggested to the appellant: "Go to gate lounge 3 and get them to hold the plane'; or: 'See if they can stop the plane', whereupon the appellant set off. Ms Harben remained to negotiate to try to get her son's luggage accepted at the check in counter.

There were about 10 queues operating that morning. It was a busy time. The appellant's group was in approximately the sixth queue counting from the left as one faced the check in barriers. The appellant attempted to move as quickly as she could through the queues (which were up to four in number obviously) which were to her right. She intended to get onto the escalator ramp or stairs which carried people to the individual departure lounges. The last time she had been in the terminal it was possible to do this without impediment. However, Ansett had, in October 1988, installed a security gate with a scanning device. This is a familiar aspect of modern flight arrangements and no complaint is made on that account by the appellant. Because of the gate and scanner it had been necessary to channel passengers in through the front of the gateway. The glass wall which the appellant ran into served that purpose.