We are looking at falls on steps this week...starting with this fascinating case that could be titled Leeming JA v the Building Code of Australia (BCA) but is: Venues NSW v Kane [2023] NSWCA 192
The Court of Appeal overturned a District Court decision that awarded damages after a patron fell at a stadium without a handrail. shock, horror gasp...
There's a great headnote in the judgment. So, we've done a longer summary as there is a lot in the judgment.
Leeming JA & Simpson AJA differed in opinion on the legal analysis to decide whether a reasonable person in the stadium occupier's position would have installed a handrail. These revolved around the patron's choice not to use the handrail because they carried items or walked on the other side of the stairs.
The reasoning of Simpson AJA makes the most sense to me.
Our summary is in the comments. Here's the bit about the BCA:
Leeming JA
"[78] I return to the [BCA]. This Court heard no argument about the conclusion reached by the primary judge, preferring the opinion of Mr Cauduro over that of Dr Cooke, that handrails were mandated. I very much doubt that that is so. Mr Cauduro did not explain why, if that were so, handrails were not required along all stepped aisles, including those with seating on each side. To my mind, the detail of the provisions mentioned above, which addressed stepped aisles in venues such as the stadium in this case, requiring steps of equal height and treads as nearly as possible equal length and with prescribed dimensions as to the slope of the tiers and the distance between each tier, suggests that for the purposes of the [BCA], the aisle is not a “staircase”. But in the absence of submissions on this point, I do not express a concluded view. The reasoning above applies even if as the primary judge held the [BCA] mandated a handrail.
[79] The [BCA] also mandates that the steps be of the same horizontal width to the extent possible. I have considered the impact of this upon the steps in the lower concourse. No submissions were made about this, and it is not necessary to express any firm conclusions. The fact that the steps were of uneven width made them more awkward to use. However, that very fact would have forced patrons to be more cautious. My tentative view is that nothing turns upon the uneven width of the steps. But in any event, the fact that the steps were of uneven width does not detract from any of the reasoning above on s 5B(1)(c)."
#bricksandamortar #legoandlegal #safety #fallsprevention #torts #negligence #crowdsafety #stairway #safetyprofessionals
Regional Vice President, Europe & Middle East, Los Angeles Tourism & Convention Board
2moSo happy you enjoyed your time in LA Dee! See you later this year! :)