In terms of principle and logic, such inspections could not, in any case, be limited to examination of the possible defects of internal doors with glass panels. Inspections of gas, electricity, flooring, ceilings, balconies, railings and all aspects of the premises would be required by such a principle. They would have to be performed by different experts for the necessary fees. By inference, such costs would all be passed on to tenants as a class. Of course, these remarks concern the liability of landlords of residential premises. Different considerations may well apply to premises used by government or its agencies or by private bodies, including for commercial, public, schooling, health care or other purposes. Where members of the public generally are invited onto, or have a right to enter, premises a higher duty will be imposed by the law.
26 In my opinion, those remarks are apposite to this case.
27 Furthermore, even if a person with some general expertise in building and/or architecture had been engaged, I do not think there was evidence before the primary judge that could justify a finding on the balance of probabilities that such an expert would have detected that the glass in the bathroom shower was not safety glass and would have recommended its replacement. Even the highly qualified expert called for the defendant was not aware that safety glass was required to bear a label that showed it was safety glass and would not, otherwise than by such a label, have been able to determine whether the subject glass was or was not safety glass. In circumstances where the legislature and the Australian Standard have made a requirement for new installations that safety glass be used, but have refrained from imposing any requirement for replacement of glass which is not safety glass, it is not clear that an expert would have included a recommendation that the glass be replaced in any event.
28 Furthermore, even if such an expert had made an inspection and made such recommendation, it seems almost certain that the expert's report would have suggested many other matters in relation to the house, in particular in relation to the electrical wiring, plumbing and drainage. When one has regard to the nature of the premises and the rent being obtained, there is a real question as to whether reasonable care would then have required the replacement of the glass, either as one of a number of items to be attended to or perhaps as a matter given priority over other items. If such a report had recommended replacement of the electrical wiring, plumbing and drainage systems, as well as replacement of the shower glass, perhaps among other things, and if those recommendations had all been complied with, then it seems likely that they would have required very substantial expense, that would in turn have been reflected in the rent asked for the property.
29 In any event, in my opinion the circumstance that the history of maintenance of the house suggested problems with the electricity system and the plumbing and drainage could not support a conclusion that the glass in the shower enclosure was matter giving rise to a foreseeable risk of injury; and in those circumstances, in my opinion, the decision of the primary judge was in error, and no breach of duty by the appellants was established.