Shoalhaven City Council v Pender

Expert evidence 118Expert evidence was called by Mr Pender from an ergonomist, Dr Adams, as to the circumstances of the fall. Dr Adams identified the steepness of the slope as the main factor contributing to the fall and did not suggest that the slipperiness or slip resistance of the ramp itself, whether or not covered with dry algae, was a necessary condition of the fall. 119Dr Adams concluded (as explained at Black 152.34 -153.5) that the combination of movements by Mr Pender, in twisting and standing whilst concentrating on a task ahead, had led Mr Pender to overlook the slope on which he was standing and that, as he stood up, Mr Pender had failed to compensate for that slope with his feet. 120Dr Adams noted that the relevant Australian Design Standards recommend cleating or gridding of a work surface if it exceeded 7 degrees (as this ramp did) and stated "with confidence" that changing posture and position quickly when a person was starting from an awkward posture and standing on a slope with a gradient steeper than that "has a distinct probability of resulting in that person suffering a slip or an unbalanced misstep" (Blue 425.W - 426.C). In essence, Dr Adams' evidence supported a conclusion that the accident was caused by the mechanics involved in the way Mr Pender had stood up (after crouching down to check the ferry clearances) and had nothing to do with the slipperiness or otherwise of the ramp. 121No slip tests were conducted on the ramp. Dr Adams' view (at Blue 425) was that: It is of little value to try and measure the coefficient of friction available on the surface when Mr Pender slipped. Not only is the absence of any effective cleating or gridding a more important factor on so steep a slope then the friction or properties of the material but other factors also come into play on a sloping surface that have more relevance than the frictional properties of the surface would have if the surface had been perfectly flat. 122In the witness box, Dr Adams said that Mr Pender's slip was not of the nature that required any measurement of the slip resistance of the ramp (Black 148.48; Black 149.1). He considered the incident to be one that was a function of the other dynamics discussed in his report "and not a function of a [slip] that was a result of an inadequate slip resistance on the surface per se". 123At Black 149.38-42, Dr Adams accepted that, in this particular situation and in relation to the dynamics of this particular fall, it did not matter what the slip resistance of the surface was. He then qualified that by saying "[w]ell, I wouldn't say it wouldn't have made it [any difference] if it had been inherently slippery. That would have increased the likelihood of that kind of fall. But it didn't matter to my evaluation of the dynamics of the fall". (Black 149.47). At Black 151.27, Dr Adams said the problem was not in the ramp itself; rather, it was in the fact that Mr Pender was on a steep slope and performing a task requiring a couple of movements. 124Dr Adams confirmed that Mr Pender's instructions to him had been that his feet had been on dry concrete when he slipped (Black 148.14) and said that Mr Pender had been quite clear that "[t]here was no history of him being on contaminants" (Black 148.16). At Black 153.49, Dr Adams said that Mr Pender recalled it being not slippery. 125At Black 154.3, Dr Adams suggested that "had he [Mr Pender] been on a more highly slip resistant surface, one that gave firmer grip beneath his feet, that slip may not have progressed as it did to an outright fall" but could only say that it would have improved the likelihood that the slip would proceed to a fall. He agreed that it would be speculative to suggest by how much that likelihood would be increased. 126It is submitted by Mr Sexton that a combination of the evidence of Mr Pender and Dr Adams should have led to the conclusion that it was the mechanics of Mr Pender's actual movement on the ramp (and not the state of the ramp itself or anything the Council had or had not done) that had caused the fall. 127Ms Norton SC, appearing for Mr Pender, accepted that Dr Adams had not regarded slip tests as relevant to his analysis. Ms Norton described that analysis as highlighting the problem, from an ergonomic point of view, caused by the steepness of the ramp. She placed weight on the fact that Dr Adams had accepted that slipperiness of the ramp made it more dangerous (Blue 425F-426C). During the course of the hearing below, reliance by Mr Pender on the case theory advanced by Dr Adams was abandoned.

Findings of the primary judge 128The primary judge was satisfied, from the description given by Mr Pender as to how he fell and from the evidence of Mr Aber Ahama, that, on the balance of probabilities, Mr Pender fell on the ramp "because it was slippery" ([18]). 129Her Honour had noted (at [15]) Mr Pender's evidence that the concrete in the area where he fell was dry and smooth and (at [16]) Dr Adams' explanation for the fall as being that Mr Pender had failed to compensate for the steepness of the slope when he moved from the crouched posture in order to stand up straight (this failure being due, according to Dr Adams, to "the confounding effects of ... misperceptions" induced the "disorienting effect of the combination of visual, vestibular and kinaesthetic determinants"). Nevertheless, her Honour concluded that Dr Adams' evidence was "overwhelmed" ([17]) by the evidence of Mr Aber Ahama (to which I have referred above). 130Her Honour then noted that the ferry operator's contract with the Council obliged it to report to the Council any accident that had or might result in time lost, and inferred from this that the Council had received notice of the earlier injuries on the ramp ([22]). 131Her Honour was satisfied that the Council was notified every couple of months that the ramp was dirty and slippery. Her Honour also noted (at [19]) the evidence that the Council did not always respond to fix defects the subject of such reports. 132Having regard to Mr Aber Ahama's evidence, and to the defect reports and the ferry operator's Register of Injuries, her Honour was satisfied that the Council knew that the ramp regularly became slippery and needed cleaning; and that this was "a condition which develops over time" ([24]). 133At [25], her Honour noted that it was unclear whether the Council had a system for the regular inspection of the ramp, or whether the Roads and Traffic Authority regularly inspected the ramp on its behalf (there being inspection reports from the RTA in evidence). Her Honour also noted a concession made on behalf of the Council that there were documents suggesting that, before Mr Pender's fall, the Council conducted three-monthly maintenance reviews (although the Council had only produced four documents in answer to a subpoena calling for maintenance reviews over the period from 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2008). 134Her Honour found at [26] that "[t]he state of the ramp on the day of Mr Pender's fall evidences that the ramp was not being cleaned by the Council in a timely manner". 135Her Honour found (at [28] that: ...the risk was foreseeable (that is, it is a risk of which the Council knew or ought to have known), the risk was not insignificant and that a reasonable person in the Council's position would have instituted a pro-active maintenance system to keep the ramp clean ... and noted that there was no evidence that the Council had such a system. Her Honour was presumably there referring either to the risk that Mr Pender would slip if the ramp was not the subject of a proactive maintenance system or the risk that he would slip if the ramp was not kept clean. 136At [29], her Honour noted that there was a simple and inexpensive way of fixing the problem; that the Council had from time to time in the past used a pressure cleaner to clean down the ramp; and that it was probable that a person would slip if the ramp was not kept clean. 137Her Honour did not accept that the use of longer landing flaps attached to the ferry would have reduced any risk of injury in the circumstances of the fall ([30.2]; hence the dismissal of the alternative basis on which the claim was put. 138Her Honour rejected the claim of contributory negligence on the part of Mr Pender on the basis that the Council had not shown that Mr Pender was or ought to have been aware that the ramp in that area was slippery ([33]). In so doing, her Honour rejected the Council's submission that, if the ramp was slippery and Mr Aber Ahama was aware that it was slippery, then on the balance of probabilities Mr Pender should also have been aware that it was slippery. This was on the basis that Mr Pender was a ferry operator of around the same level of experience as Mr Aber Ahama. Her Honour noted at [32] that Mr Pender had only recently started work at the Comerong Island ferry location and said that it was clear from his evidence, and the contemporaneous complaints that he made, that Mr Pender was uncertain as to why he had slipped. 139As to the operation of s 151Z of the Workers Compensation Act, her Honour noted that it was common ground that a deduction should be made from any award of damages to reflect the liability of Mr Pender's employer ([34]). Her Honour accepted that the ferry operator company became aware, through its employees, that the ramp regularly became slippery over time ([35]). Her Honour also noted that it was common ground that it was not the duty of the employer under its contract with the Council to maintain the ramp ([36]). 140At [37], her Honour made reference to the non-delegable duty of care owed to an employee by its employer. Her Honour was satisfied that, had the ferry operator been a party to the proceedings, the evidence would establish that it knew the ramp regularly became slippery and that the Council did not always respond to defect notices in a timely manner. Her Honour noted that the ferry operator could have taken steps in response to that situation, such as warning and directing its employees not to walk down the ramp. Her Honour assessed the liability of the employer at 25% ([38]). 141As to the damages claimed by Mr Pender, her Honour accepted that he had sustained a significant injury to his right shoulder which required operative treatment and had an ongoing disability in that shoulder ([54]). Her Honour was not satisfied that the disability was as severe as Mr Pender had described it ([54]), preferring the opinions of the treating specialists (Dr Walsh and Dr Stening) to those of the doctors qualified as experts ([55]). Her Honour referred in this regard to the unreliability of Mr Pender's oral evidence. Her Honour did not accept the diagnosis by Dr Clark of a significant psychiatric condition, noting that this depended on Mr Pender having the level of symptoms recorded by Dr Clark and not being persuaded that this was a true reflection of Mr Pender's actual symptoms and disabilities ([56]). Non-economic loss was assessed at 30%. This was not the subject of challenge. Past out of pocket expenses were agreed. Her Honour allowed $5,000 for future out of pocket expenses. This allowance was also not the subject of challenge. 142As to past economic loss, the primary judge was not satisfied that Mr Pender was totally disabled from work in the periods when he had not worked ([62]) and was not persuaded that he had fully exercised his earning capacity during the periods that he had worked, noting that Mr Pender had refused to work extra hours because he believed he would be "lowering" himself ([63]). 143Her Honour noted at [64], but did not resolve, an issue as to Mr Pender's actual earnings at the time of the accident. He was earning $680 net per week according to the Council; $800 per week according to Mr Pender. The resolution of this issue was apparently complicated by Mr Pender's resignation in March 2007 and re-employment in April 2007. Her Honour accepted that there were some limitations on Mr Pender's earning capacity flowing from his disabilities and allowed half of the amount claimed for past economic loss inclusive of superannuation ($77,000). There is no challenge to this finding. 144As to future economic loss, her Honour was satisfied that Mr Pender would have continued to work as a ferry master had the accident not occurred ([68]); did not regard his current earnings as a reliable measure of his residual earning capacity ([70]); and found that there was some impairment in his earning capacity due to the limitation imposed by pain and discomfort if he needed regularly to use his right arm ([71]). Her Honour accepted that it was likely that there were jobs for which Mr Pender was fit, that would pay around the same or a little less than that of a ferry master, but that it was probable that there would be periods during which Mr Pender would have difficulty finding suitable work because of the restrictions on his earning capacity ([74]). The Council did not cavil with the last finding. 145Mr Pender had claimed the sum of $436,407 for future economic loss, calculated on the basis of an impairment in earning capacity of $600 net per week over a 33 year period with a 15% deduction for vicissitudes. Her Honour did not consider it possible to assess Mr Pender's future economic loss on any mathematical basis. Her Honour allowed $200,000 inclusive of superannuation ([76]). 146Her Honour found Mr Pender's claim for domestic assistance very difficult to assess. Her Honour noted that Mr Pender might have difficulty with very heavy tasks and might have restrictions in working above shoulder height for lengthy periods with his right arm ([78]) but did not accept that he had needed assistance for many of the tasks that he said he could no longer perform, having regard to the evidence of Mr Pender's flatmate as to his laziness and disinclination to assist in household chores. 147Her Honour accepted (at [81]) that Mr Pender would have needed domestic assistance for a closed period after the accident ([81]) and that this would have exceeded the threshold specified in s 15 of the Civil Liability Act. Her Honour allowed 2 years, at 8 hours a week, at $24 per hour for this head of damage. As to future domestic assistance, her Honour accepted that "[t]here may be a limited number of non-recurring domestic activities for which Mr Pender will be unfit in the future eg painting a house" and that it was likely that any assistance for those activities would be paid, but declined to find him unfit for normal weekly housework ([84]). Her Honour allowed a lump sum of $50,000 for this head of damage. 148The total damages award was $370,242.

Appeal Grounds 149The Council, by its Notice of Appeal, contends that her Honour erred in a number of respects: [5] in failing precisely to identify the risk of harm as required by s 5B(1)(a) of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW); [6] in finding that the risk of harm was foreseeable to the Council (in circumstances where her Honour also found that it was not reasonably foreseeable to the Council that Mr Pender would decide to check underneath the ferry for clearances); [7] in finding that the ferry ramp was slippery and that this was the cause of Mr Pender's fall (it being contended that her Honour was in error in disregarding or rejecting Mr Pender's evidence as to why he had fallen and the expert evidence as to the fall); [8] in failing to find that Mr Pender had slipped as a result of the mechanics of his movement at the time as identified by his expert evidence and not as a result of the slipperiness of the ferry ramp; [9] in finding that Mr Pender fell because of the slipperiness of the ramp, doing so (based on lay evidence as to the slipperiness of the ramp which was neither specific as to place or time); [10] in finding that the Council had breached its duty of care to Mr Pender (by finding that the ferry ramp should have been kept clean by it, otherwise it was probable that a person would slip and fall); [11] in finding that the Council had breached its duty of care to Mr Pender (in circumstances where her Honour had failed to identify what system of inspection and cleaning the Council should have undertaken in relation to the ferry ramp in circumstances where it was continually exposed to the tides and continual marine growth); [12] in finding that the state of the ferry ramp on the day of the fall was evidence that the ramp was not being cleaned by the Council in a timely manner; [13] in finding that Mr Pender had not been guilty of contributory negligence; [14] in assessing the responsibility of Mr Pender's employer at 25% pursuant to s 151Z of the Workers Compensation Act in circumstances where the employer would attend at the ferry ramp far more regularly and be more familiar with its daily condition than the appellant; [15] in assessing Mr Pender's future economic loss at $200,000 (in circumstances where her Honour had found that: there were issues with the reliability of Mr Pender's evidence; Mr Pender had exaggerated his evidence; Mr Pender's evidence was contradicted by lay and other evidence; Mr Pender was not fully exercising his earning capacity; and that there were jobs for which Mr Pender was fit that would pay him about the same as his pre-injury earnings); [16] in assessing Mr Pender's future domestic assistance at $50,000 (in circumstances where, in addition to the findings made as to Mr Pender's evidence, her Honour found that there were only limited "non-recurring" domestic activities for which he might not be fit); and [17] in finding that Mr Pender was entitled to future paid domestic assistance (in circumstances where he would not have been entitled to voluntary domestic assistance pursuant to s 25 of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)). 150I turn to the respective grounds of appeal.

Grounds 5-6 - reasonably foreseeable risk of harm 151It is not disputed that Mr Pender was required to establish that there was a "not insignificant" risk of harm of which the Council knew or ought to have known and to which it ought reasonably to have responded. In Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales v Dederer [2007] HCA 42; (2007) 234 CLR 330 Gummow J at [59]-[61] referred to the need for there to be a correct identification of the risk of harm in order for an assessment of the reasonable response to be made. 152Mr Sexton submits that the risk of harm implicit in her Honour's finding of negligence was that a person in Mr Pender's position would get off the ferry and walk down the ramp. The area was not open to access by the public. Mr Sexton submits that the finding (at [30.2]) that Mr Pender had not established that it was reasonably foreseeable by the Council that Mr Pender would decide to check underneath the ferry for clearances should have led her Honour to the conclusion that the risk of harm to Mr Pender was not reasonably foreseeable; and therefore that the Council could not have been negligent. 153Ms Norton submits that the relevant risk of harm was the risk that a person would slip on the ramp and thereby suffer injury; and that there was no need to articulate it more clearly than that, referring to Garzo v Liverpool/Campbelltown Christian School [2012] NSWCA 151 [24] and [123]. In Garzo, Tobias AJA had considered at [123] that the risk of harm could be sufficiently identified as that of a person slipping on the painted surface of the crossing and thereby suffering an injury. 154It is implicit in her Honour's findings that the risk of harm her Honour had identified was, at its broadest, the risk that a person in the position of Mr Pender would slip on the ramp and suffer harm. The finding at [30.2] that it was not reasonably foreseeable that a person in Mr Pender's position would have gone onto the ramp for the particular purpose that he did, i.e. to check the underneath of the ferry for ferry clearances, is not necessarily inconsistent with the implicit finding that there was a risk that a person in his position might go onto the ramp, for whatever reason, and fall. 155The Council was clearly on notice that ferry operators might from time to time walk on the ramp since it was on notice of at least two earlier incidents involving ferry operators falling on the ramp. Therefore, I do not accept the submission that the finding at [30.2] should have led to a finding of no negligence. 156In oral submissions, it was argued by Mr Sexton that a more specific risk of harm (by reference to the state of the ramp's surface rather than by reference to the purpose for which someone might go onto the ramp) was the risk that had to be identified, namely the risk of a workman slipping on (imperceptible) dry algae, so as to enable focus to be made on the question what should have been done to prevent the risk or to take precautions against the risk. That accords more closely with the way in which the risk of harm was identified in Garzo and focuses attention on the relevant enquiry, which is what the Council ought reasonably to have done to address that risk. I would accept that finding such a risk of harm was necessary in order to give rise to a claim in negligence as contended for by Mr Pender. 157Nevertheless, having regard to the measure her Honour referred to as available to remove the risk, i.e., pressure cleaning, it is implicit in her Honour's overall reasons that the risk of harm identified by her Honour was that of slipping on a ramp that was slippery because of dirt or some kind of covering, such as algae, on the ramp. Whether or not the Council could reasonably have foreseen that dry algae was slippery, there was clearly a basis for the finding that it was reasonably foreseeable by the Council that if the ramp became slippery by reason of slime or contaminants or algae growth of some kind, then someone in the position of Mr Pender could slip and fall. 158Ultimately, although not precisely identified, the risk of harm was sufficiently clear from her Honour's reasons as a whole. 159The Council complains that her Honour did not explain the basis for her conclusion that the risk of harm was "not insignificant"; i.e., a risk of a higher probability than is indicated by the phrase 'not far fetched and fanciful' but not so high as might be indicated by a phrase such as 'a substantial risk', to adopt the language used in the Ipp Review of the Law of Negligence. Commonsense indicates that the risk of harm by slipping on a concrete ramp would be not insignificant. Ms Norton pointed in this regard to evidence in Dr Adams' report to attendances at emergency departments in hospitals as results of falls and to his reference to 22% of general workplace accidents being related to falls (Blue 426.N-T). 160I do not consider that her Honour erred in finding, implicitly, that the Council knew or ought to have known of the risk that a person in Mr Pender's position might go onto the ramp in the course of performing his duties as a ferry master (whether or not for the particular purpose of checking ferry clearances) and might, in so doing, slip on the ramp (if it was slippery because of something that was capable of removal by cleaning) and injure himself or herself. Nor do I consider that her Honour erred in finding that the risk of harm was one that was not insignificant. 161Grounds 5 and 6 are therefore not made out.

Grounds 7-9 and 12 - factual findings as to the fall and as to the state of the ramp 162Section 5D(1)(a) requires proof that "but for" the negligence, Mr Pender would not have slipped and fallen suffering the injuries that he did (see Strong v Woolworths Ltd [2012] HCA 5; (2012) 246 CLR 182 at [20]). This focuses attention on how and why it was that Mr Pender fell. 163The Council challenges her Honour's findings that the ramp was slippery and that this was the cause of Mr Pender's fall. Ms Norton submits that those findings were open on the evidence, having regard to the defect report which was completed on the day of the accident, the ferry operator's Register of Injuries, the pre-accident defect reports, and the oral evidence of both Mr Pender and Mr Aber Ahama. 164As to the defects report on the day of the accident, this simply refers to the need for cleaning. Neither that report nor Mr Pender's own recollections of the accident identified the ramp as being "slippery" (as opposed to Mr Pender having slipped on the ramp). The entry in the ferry operator's Register of Injuries simply referred to the fact of the slip. While there was reference in some of the pre-accident defects reports to the need for cleaning, this was not linked to any state of slipperiness of the ramp and it is not possible from those to form a view as to whether the presence of dry algae was perceived as making the ramp slippery, as opposed, say, to slime. 165Ms Norton notes that Mr Aber Ahama's evidence was not confined to the ramp being slippery when it was wet; that his evidence was that it was dangerous whether it was wet or dry (Black 165.39) and that it was slippery (Black 165.46) even when it was dry (Black 166.10). Mr Sexton notes that Mr Aber Ahama's evidence was largely non-specific as to the time and place of the state of the ramp and cleaning to which he had referred. 166Mr Aber Ahama's immediate response, when cross-examined as to whether the steep bit of the concrete ramp was very slippery and dangerous, was that "when it's wet, yes". Pressed on whether it was a "pretty dangerous spot" and "slippery whether it was wet or dry", he seemed readily to have accepted that that was the case. Nevertheless, his initial response limited the state of slipperiness of the ramp to when it was wet. He then accepted the proposition put by Counsel that smooth concrete, whether wet or dry, was slippery; and, when wet, was more slippery. Mr Aber Ahama also qualified his answer to a question as to having to be careful because the ramp is slippery to "yes, when it's slippery, yes" (implicitly accepting that it was not slippery all the time). 167Mr Sexton submits that these answers responded to questions put to Mr Aber Ahama as to the smooth concrete, not to anything on the surface. Mr Sexton submits there was no suggestion from Mr Aber Ahama's answers that the slipperiness of the ramp was connected to anything on the ramp that could be cleaned by the Council. I agree. 168Mr Aber Ahama denied that the state of the ramp being slippery and needing to be water blasted was a constant problem (Black 171.34). As already noted, he accepted that every couple of months the ramps were dirty and/or slippery. He said that the water blasting mainly removed "the slime that grows on the concrete ... right down the bottom where it's always wet" (T 173). 169Ms Norton submits that Mr Aber Ahama's evidence logically must have related to the area between low and high watermark that got wet and slippery every couple of months. However, what Mr Aber Ahama there seemed to be saying needed to be cleaned was "slime" not dry algae. 170There was no evidence from Mr Aber Ahama as to his observation of any dry algae on the ramp; the slipperiness of dry algae; or what the residue of build-up from dry algae would look like to the naked eye. 171Mr Pender's evidence as to the state of the ramp where he fell (as referred to earlier) was clearly inconsistent. Significantly, it was inconsistent as to whether Mr Pender had been standing on dry algae when he slipped and fell, and as to whether Mr Pender had been able to see the dry algae on which he assumed he must have been standing. On a fair reading of his evidence, if he had been standing on algae when he fell (but had not been able to see this at the time) then he must have been drawing a distinction between dry and wet algae (the latter, at least, being visible to him since he said he stopped well before this). He also seems to have been drawing a distinction between "dry algae" and "crustacean dirt", though it is not clear what difference there was as to the slipperiness of those different substances. 172It is submitted by Mr Sexton, not unfairly, that the upshot of Mr Pender's evidence (from T 17-18, T 63 and T 66) is that: where he fell the ramp was not wet; he did not see any algae or other contaminant there; and he assumed that there must have been dry algae on the ramp. 173Ms Norton, appearing for Mr Pender, emphasised that in cross-examination Mr Pender had repeatedly said that his foot had slipped straight out from underneath him (for example Black 66.2-10, Black 67.5) and that Mr Pender had consistently stated that he did not know why he had fallen. Accepting that is the case, it nevertheless does not address the difficulties in the inconsistency as to his evidence relating to the dry algae now said to have been the cause of the fall. Mr Sexton notes that Mr Pender did not resile from the proposition that where he was standing when he slipped it was dry, not wet, and that what Mr Pender added as his evidence progressed was that he must have been standing on dry algae. 174Ms Norton pointed to Mr Pender's limited educational background and submitted that, by reference to the transcript, it could be seen that Mr Pender had had difficulty understanding and answering various questions asked of him during the course of the hearing. By way of example, Ms Norton pointed to Mr Pender's confusion as to questions put to him in the witness box at Black 18-19 and her Honour's observation at Black 22 that Mr Pender was nervous. However, the confusion at Black 18 was as to what was meant by "marine material" and the nervousness observed by her Honour at Black 22.27, during questioning as to what he had done when explaining what he had done on the first day that he worked on the ramp, would not seem to explain the inconsistency in his account as to whether he did or did not see algae where he was standing when he fell. Mr Pender said that he could see the algae and stopped before the algae (perhaps explicable by a difference between wet and dry algae) but then that he "must have" fallen on dry algae (which bespeaks an element of reconstruction). 175It is submitted by Ms Norton that Mr Pender was not required to establish that he was aware, at the time he slipped and fell, exactly why the slip occurred. That much is accepted. However, the question is whether Mr Pender proved on the balance of probabilities that a necessary condition of the fall was that the ramp was slippery due to something on the ramp that could have been removed,by water blasting or otherwise, and that the Council's failure to have a more "pro-active" system of maintenance in place to clean the ramp was a cause of the slipperiness and hence of the fall. 176Mr Aber Ahama's evidence was variously that the ramp was always slippery (i.e. whether wet or dry) and that it was slippery when wet. His observations seemed to draw a distinction between a dirty ramp and a slippery ramp. Moreover, his observations suggest that what was removed by water blasting (slime) was where the ramp was always wet. 177The difficulty I have with her Honour's findings as to the fall is that Dr Adams' evidence as to the mechanics of the fall identified the main factor contributing to the fall as being the steepness of the ramp. Although Dr Adams accepted that, if slippery or inherently slippery, this would increase the likelihood of a slip "progressing" to a fall, this assumes that the ramp was in fact slippery at the time - something Mr Pender disavowed when giving instructions to Dr Adams. Implicit in Dr Adams' report is the assumption that dry concrete would be sufficiently slip resistant for it not to be necessary to measure the slip resistance of the concrete when considering the way the fall occurred. 178Ms Norton submits that the evidence establishes that Mr Pender did not fall simply as a result of the mechanics of his movements. I am not satisfied that the evidence does establish this. Dr Adams' evidence contradicts such a proposition. 179It would surely have been a simple matter to ascertain the slipperiness (or additional slipperiness) caused by the presence of dry algae on the ramp or on a similar concrete surface. However, there was no evidence as to this. 180Without knowing whether and to what extent the presence of dry algae (as opposed, say, to crustacean dirt) made the ramp more slippery, and without knowing if there was indeed dry, but not obviously visible, algae where Mr Pender slipped, there is no evidence from which one could conclude on the balance of probabilities that the presence of dry algae on the ramp on the day of the accident was a necessary contributing factor to the fall. 181With respect to her Honour, the evidence of Mr Aber Ahama does not overcome that difficulty. If, as Mr Aber Ahama said, the ramp was always slippery (wet or dry) then the presence of dry algae would seem to be irrelevant unless it contributed to the degree of slipperiness and accordingly the relevant risk of harm (and there was no evidence as to this). Moreover, part of the surface of the ramp was presumably covered by the tide at various times during the day and hence would not have been in the same condition all the time. There is nothing to show how long it took to build up dry algae to the point where it would become or be likely to be slippery. 182Reference was made by Mr Sexton to the observations of Hodgson JA in Youkhana v Di Veroli [2010] NSWCA 322, at [37] as to the need to balance lay evidence and that of experts on the question of slipperiness. The difficulty in that case was that the evidence as to the stairs being worn and slippery was simply an opinion by the witness. At [38] - [40], Hodgson JA said: The evidence of the appellant that she felt her foot slip was not, in my opinion, of itself strong evidence that the step was objectively slippery, which would weigh significantly against well-conducted measurements. ... The evidence of Ms Phillips was not in a form in which it could be given very significant weight. Ms Phillips merely stated, "I am aware that the stairs were worn and slippery". The statement did not say what it was that made her so aware, and specifically did not say that she had ever actually felt her own feet slipping on the stairs. On the Ferrcom approach, it might be said that evidence about whether she actually felt her feet slip on the stairs was not given, and that if this question had been addressed it would not have assisted the appellant. 183In the present case, Mr Aber Ahama's evidence as to the slipperiness of the ramp was in similarly general terms. Weighed against the expert evidence, the suggestion that Mr Aber Ahama's evidence overwhelmed that of Dr Adams cannot in my view be sustained. 184Grounds 7-9 are in my view made out. 185As to Ground 12, the difficulty is that there is no finding as to what would have been a timely manner for the cleaning of the ramp, in the sense that there is no evidence as to how long it took for dry algae (assuming that is what Mr Pender slipped on) to build up so as to become slippery and pose a reasonably foreseeable risk of harm. Only if that were known could one determine how regularly the ramp needed to be cleaned. Moreover, the finding assumes that the state of the ramp was in fact slippery, due to algae, at the time of the fall. There was no evidence to support the conclusion that it was. 186Such a finding suffers from the difficulties highlighted above as to what was the state of the ramp. Ground 12 is therefore also made out.

Grounds 10-11 - breach of duty of care 187It was not disputed that the Council, as occupier of the land on which Mr Pender slipped, owed him a duty to take reasonable care to prevent injury to him on the assumption he was using reasonable care for his own safety. Mr Sexton notes that, in this context, in Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna [1987] HCA 7; (1987) 162 CLR 479 (at 488) it was said that what is reasonable turns on the circumstances of entry upon the land. Here, the circumstance of entry onto the land was that Mr Pender was operating the ferry and going onto the ramp in the course of his employment. 188What a reasonable person in the Council's position would have done in response to the risk that someone in Mr Pender's position might slip and injure himself or herself on the ramp must be considered prospectively (Adeels Palace Pty Ltd v Moubarak [2009] HCA 48; (2009) 239 CLR 420 at [31]). The manner in which the injury was in fact sustained is not relevant to that question (Neindorf v Junkovic [2005] HCA 75; (2005) 80 ALJR 341 at [96] - [97]). Furthermore, the fact that there were steps that could have taken to avert the risk that actually materialised does not establish breach of a duty of care (Thornton v Sweeney [2011] NSWCA 244; (2011) 59 MVR155 at [131]). 189Mr Sexton accepts that the evidence was that generally when the ramp was found to be dirty "and/or" slippery a works order would be generated by Mr Pender's employer and that the Council would usually, though not always, then clean the ramp with a high-pressure hose. That said, the defects reports in evidence were not restricted to cleaning requests and the defects report on the day of the accident referred to "both" ramps, not simply the mainland ramp. As Mr Sexton submits, there was no evidence as to what kind of system was required in order to meet the risk of harm, in the circumstances where this was a tidal ramp, not open to the public and used only by employees, that was exposed to the tides. He contends, and I agree, that there needed to be evidence as to the regularity of cleaning necessary to be carried out in order for the ramp not to be slippery before any finding of breach of the duty of care could be made. 190In other words there needed to be evidence as to how regularly a "pro-active" maintenance system of the kind for which Mr Pender contended should have operated. It is submitted by Mr Sexton that no breach of duty was established in the absence of evidence to establish with some degree of particularity that the Council's practice in relation to cleaning of the ramp (assuming that be on a "needs" basis) departed from standard practice, and as to what reasonable alternatives, if any, could have been put in place to eliminate or minimise the risk (referring to Neill v NSW Fresh Food and Ice Pty Ltd [1963] HCA 4; (1962) 108 CLR 363). I agree. 191Ms Norton points to the evidence that, from time to time, the Council cleaned the ramp and that there were (or was an expectation in the maintenance reports that there would be) three-monthly maintenance reviews. It was submitted that this evidence showed the requirements of a reasonable cleaning and maintenance system, i.e., on a three-monthly basis. Ms Norton referred to Strong v Woolworths Ltd at [14] in this regard. 192As already noted, however, there was no evidence as to how it would ordinarily take for algae to regenerate after cleaning of the ramp nor as to how quickly it would dry between the high and low watermark. While there was evidence of the existence of a system for a maintenance review of the ferry and wharves, it is by no means clear that this extended to observation as to the cleanliness of the ramps. There was certainly no evidence as to what a standard cleaning system would be for a ramp in this tidal location. 193There were in evidence two Roads and Traffic Authority maintenance reports as well as the monthly maintenance checklist that formed part of the Council's contract with the ferry operator company. The RTA reports refer mainly to matters relating to the vessel. So, for example, the report of 22 September 2005 report dealt with inspection of a particular vessel (the Cormorant) as well as "associated shore equipment". Associated shore equipment included the approach ramps, of which it was said "[t]he approach ramp on the mainland side is in poor condition at the low water mark. As mentioned in the previous report". It is conceded that this entry was unlikely to refer to cleaning of the ramp. That report noted that the vessel's next quarterly inspection was to be on 15 December 2005. It is clear from the report that the primary focus was on the vessel and that the repair to the approach ramp was as to the damage that could occur to the hull if the vessel was brought into the approach too far. The 15 December 2005 inspection of the Cormorant made a similar observation as to the approach ramp on the mainland side and noted the next quarterly inspection at 16 March 2006. 194As to the ferry defect reports/work requests directed to the Council, there was a facsimile transmission of 15 April 2005 in which the Council was advised that "[c]oncrete ramp western end of ferry, very slippery, need water blasting"; a report dated 27 February 2006 from Mr Wallace (the ferry master who later slipped on the ramp twice in January 2007), stating, amongst other matters, that "Concrete ramps need high power blasting (very slippery)"; and a report of 19 January 2007 noting "[c]oncrete ramp badly broken, exposed cut off bolts (house side). On one of the copies of the February 2006 report there is the annotation "Done", against the reference to cleaning, though it is not clear when that annotation was made) (Blue 16). . 195On 9 April 2007, the day of the accident, Mr Pender completed a report stating "[b]oth ramps/Approches [sic] need cleaning", against which there is no annotation recording that this was done) (Blue 18). On another copy of that same report (Blue 96), there was an annotation in different handwriting recording in parentheses that "driver slipped + injured - 9-4-07". After the accident, on 2 May 2007, Mr Wallace completed a report stating "Large cracks on concrete ramp. Stepped in one while dark this morning. Injured knee + back", against which there is the annotation "Done" and the comment "[I]ts been done" (Blue 19). 196The "Specification to Contract" for the Comerong Island Ferry management and operation, referred to in the Deed dated 11 January 2007 between the Council and Mr Pender's employer, included provision (at 1(c)) for the Council to conduct maintenance reviews of the ferry at monthly intervals "on a designated service day". That provision referred to the Council effecting major replacements "being items of repairs" exceeding a stated amount without cost to the Comerong Island ferry operator. The pro forma Contractor maintenance schedule included a "monthly maintenance checklist". It seems that this form may have been intended to be completed by the contractor, assuming this form is to be used in the same fashion as the daily form, although clause 1(c) might suggest otherwise. The schedule included a section relating to Associated Shore Equipment which included a check in relation to: gates, hinges and locking devices; ferry approach ramps; guide posts and chains; flood winch, ropes and cables; and other specified items. It is not clear that this envisaged a program for inspection of the ramps to ensure their cleanliness. As Mr Sexton notes, there was nothing to show what was considered to be a reasonable response to the risk that there might be algae or slime on the surface of the ramp. 197Entries from the ferry owner's Register of Injuries recorded that as at 11 January and 14 January 2007 Mr Wallace was injured, the cause of the injury being described as "Bending to hook chain + slipped"; and that on 9 April 2007, Mr Pender "slipped and fell hard onto concrete". 198Ms Norton submits that it is obvious that, had the ramp been cleaned more often, then on the balance of probabilities Mr Pender would not have slipped. However, as made clear in Strong v Woolworths Ltd, at [32], in such a case what must be considered is the likelihood that the injury would have been avoided had a particular system been in place. 199The finding that the problem could have been fixed with a water blaster does not address whether this particular accident would, on the probabilities, have been avoided. There was no evidence as to the system that should have been in place and hence no way of determining whether, had the system been complied with, the ramp would have been clean as at the time of the accident. By way of contrast, in Strong v Woolworths Ltd there was evidence of a system requiring cleaning of the area within a specific timeframe. 200Mr Sexton submits that without evidence, and findings, as to the regularity of cleaning required to prevent algae growing on the ramp, and hence to address the risk of someone slipping on the "dry algae", it could not be established that Mr Pender's injury was as a direct result of breach of a duty of care by the Council. I agree. 201Ms Norton submits that there was in effect a finding in this regard, insofar as she submitted that her Honour had accepted that there was a framework for a system of inspection every three months. However, there was not an express finding to that effect. The RTA records do not establish that there was a three monthly system of inspection of cleanliness of the ramp; rather, they are focussed, perhaps not surprisingly, on the vessels and on the physical attributes of the ramps. 202Her Honour did not make clear what she regarded as a "timely manner" when finding at [26] that the ramp was not being cleaned by the Council in a "timely manner". Mr Pender's evidence as to the state of the ramp on the day was contradictory and Mr Aber Ahama gave no evidence as to the state of the ramp on the day of the accident itself, just general observations that the ramp was slippery. The defect notice issued in January 2007 did not refer to the location on the ramp at which Mr Pender fell. As Mr Sexton points out, Mr Aber Ahama's evidence was that the ramp became "dirty and/or slippery" every couple of months. Any notification to the Council may have been as to one or other or both of those states. 203In Garzo, at [170], Tobias AJA said: ... it was necessary to consider first, what the position would have been had the respondents not been negligent in the relevant respect and, secondly, whether in that event the slip would have been prevented or not occurred. That was the position under the common law: Brady v Girvan Bros Pty Ltd (1986) 7 NSWLR 241 at 248, 249, 256; March v Stramare [1991] HCA 12; (1991) 171 CLR 506 at 514; Amaca Pty Ltd v Booth [2011] HCA 53; 86 ALJR 172 at [47]; and remains the position under ss 5D and 5E of the CL Act: Harris v Woolworths Ltd [2010] NSWCA 312 at [34]. 204Even if there had been a quarterly system in place for inspection of the cleanliness of the ramp, one would need to know how regularly dry algae growth occurred in order to assess whether on the day of the accident the ramp was likely to have been slippery due to such growth and hence whether but for the failure to have such a system in place the accident would not have occurred. If there was an inspection in January, for example, as Ms Norton suggested might have been the case following the accidents reported on the ramp at that time, it is still not known whether the ramp would have been likely to have been covered with dry algae (and slippery) at the time of the accident. 205I do not consider that it has been established that failure to implement a system of periodic inspection and cleaning of the ramp (on, say, a three monthly basis) was a necessary condition of Mr Pender's fall. The highest the evidence goes, in my opinion, is that every couple of months or so an area on the ramp (probably between the low and high watermark) became dirty and/or slippery and that, from time to time, the ramp or part of the ramp would be cleaned by water blasting. 206Ms Norton submits that the most rational inference is that Mr Pender slipped on something that was slippery and would not have been slippery if had been cleaned. Such a broad inference is not warranted in my opinion. 207Grounds 11-12 have in my opinion been made good.

Ground 13 - contributory negligence 208Complaint is made as to her Honour's finding that there was no contributory negligence in circumstances where the findings of negligence were based upon the evidence of Mr Aber Ahama that the ramp was slippery. It is submitted that her Honour erred in assuming that Mr Aber Ahama and Mr Pender did not have roughly the same level of experience and that this is an error that meets the House v R test ([1936] HCA 40; (1936) 55 CLR 499). 209It is accepted by the Council that Mr Pender had only worked on this particular ramp for a matter of days. However, reliance is placed on the fact that Mr Pender had a similar level of experience as a ferry master to that of Mr Aber Ahama, having worked for the ferry operator, albeit using different wharves, since 2001 (Black 14.10). Mr Sexton submits that there was nothing about this particular concrete tidal ramp that would have made it different in any way to any of the other ramps that Mr Pender may have used in any other areas; and that there was no basis for finding that the level of knowledge of Mr Aber Ahama, in terms of the state of the ramp, would have been in any way different from that of Mr Pender. 210Mr Sexton submits that if Mr Aber Ahama's level of knowledge was sufficient to found liability in the Council, then it should also have been enough to found significant contributory negligence in Mr Pender. The difficulty with this submission is that, without knowledge of the particular ramp/tidal conditions at the other places where Mr Pender had worked as a ferry master, it is not impossible to conclude that Mr Pender's level of knowledge was equivalent to that of Mr Aber Ahama. 211Ms Norton submits that it is clear from Mr Pender's evidence that he was not aware until after he fell that the surface of the ramp was slippery and that, as Mr Pender's evidence was that he was moving carefully on the ramp, her Honour was correct in finding there had been no contributory negligence. There was no evidence that other ramps had or suffered a similar problem to this one, although one might expect all tidal ramps to be prone to slime/algae. It was noted by Ms Norton that it was not put to Mr Pender that he knew from previous experience that, even if dry, ramps would be slippery. 212I am not persuaded that her Honour erred on the finding of no contributory negligence, when there was no evidence as to the similarities or dissimilarities between this ramp and others on which Mr Pender had worked. This ground of appeal is therefore not made out.

Ground 14 - s 151Z Workers Compensation Act 213Mr Pender's employer, not the Council, operated the ferry service. Its employees were in a position to inspect the ramp several times a day. The public was not permitted to use the ramp and therefore the ferry company employees were the only persons who used the ramp. The ferry company employees were the persons involved in the submission of "defect" notices in relation to the state of the ramp (Black 171.25). In those circumstances, it was submitted for the Council that a 25% liability finding for the employer was manifestly unreasonable. Mr Sexton submits that the employer's negligence should have been assessed equally with that of the Council at 50% or slightly higher than that of the Council at 60% and that the difference between 25% and 50-60% bespeaks appellable error. (Reference was made to Izzard v Dunbier Marine Products (NSW) Pty Ltd [2012] NSWCA 132 at [102-110] in this regard.) 214Mr Sexton also referred to Leighton Contractors v Fox [2009] HCA 35; (2009) 240 CLR 1, where it was said that the fact that someone is contractually obliged to comply with occupational health and safety regulations does not necessarily inform the scope of the duty of care owed and does not impose on that person a duty akin to that of an employer. 215Ms Norton submits that the allowance by her Honour was appropriate in circumstances where the ferry operator had regularly reported defects in the ramp and injuries occasioned by the ramp but the Council did not always take action to fix the defects. She submits that it was not the employer's right or duty to maintain the ramp; rather, that responsibility rested with the Council. 216Having regard to the non-delegable nature of the employer's duty of care, and its awareness, through the various reports in evidence of the accidents on the ramp, I consider that the level of contribution by the employer should have been assessed at 50% and that her Honour erred in finding that the employer's contribution was as low as 25%. Were the primary judge's findings as to liability to remain, this ground of appeal would have been made good and a finding of 50% contributory negligence substituted in place of her Honour's finding.

Ground 15 - economic loss 217The Council challenges only the findings as to future (not past) economic loss, noting that her Honour found that there were issues that impacted on the reliability of Mr Pender's evidence as to the impact of his injuries and that there was an unresolved dispute as to the level of earnings of Mr Pender at the time of the accident. It seems that the latter was complicated by Mr Pender having resigned in March after his accident and then having been re-employed in April. For this reason, the Council did not suggest that a buffer approach to the future economic loss claim was inappropriate; but it did maintain that her Honour's assessment of the buffer in this case was demonstrably excessive. 218In Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd v Haleluka [2012] NSWCA 343, Allsop P (as his Honour then was) noted, by reference to s 13 of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), the requirement for the court to be satisfied, before an award of damages for future economic loss can be made, that the assumptions about future earning capacity or other events on which the award is to be based accord with the claimant's most likely future circumstances but for the injury. That must then be adjusted by reference to the percentage possibility that the events might have occurred but for the injury. Work history, available work and effects of the incapacity are relevant to be taken into account. 219The Council's complaint is that her Honour did not make clear the basis on which the amount was awarded. 220Mr Pender's claim was for future economic loss calculated at $600 per week on the basis of a 75% impairment of his working capacity. This was put on the basis that he had been earning around $800 net per week before the accident and that he had a residual earning capacity of about $200 net per week. If, as the Council contends, he had been earning around $600 net per week prior to the accident, then the claim for loss of earning capacity represented an even higher loss of earning capacity, in the order of 85-90%.) 221Her Honour accepted that Mr Pender was not totally disabled in the period when he was not working and that he was not exercising full earning capacity in the period when he was working. On that basis, Mr Sexton submits that the residual earning capacity of Mr Pender was higher than that on which the future economic loss claim was predicated, since at the time of the hearing Mr Pender was working part-time as a delivery driver for $300 per week. 222Mr Sexton also noted that there was evidence from a vocational expert who had identified a range of jobs suitable to Mr Pender at a wage of between $600 to $800 gross per week. 223It was accepted that, allowing for a 15% discount for vicissitudes, her Honour's assessment of future economic loss at $200,000 amounted, on the 5% tables, to an award of around $257 per week net from the date of the trial until his retirement. It is submitted by Mr Sexton that such an assessment is not consistent with her Honour's findings that Mr Pender was not fully exercising his earning capacity and, in effect, that his then current earnings of $300 net per week were not a reliable measure of his capacity. On that basis it was submitted that the award was excessive and that an assessment in the order of $70,000-$100,000 would have allowed in excess of two years' loss of income for periods where Mr Pender may have found difficulty obtaining work. 224Ms Norton emphasised that Mr Pender's work history showed that he was only likely to obtain employment that involved physical labour and that in those circumstances the disability in his arm or shoulder was likely to lead to a significant reduction in his earning capacity. Ms Norton noted that Mr Pender would be likely to be competing against able-bodied persons when applying for such employment. Ms Norton submitted that the amount allowed by way of buffer for future economic loss represented only around 25% of the then average male weekly earnings and was not inconsistent with the primary judge's other findings or the medical evidence as to the likelihood of persisting shoulder problems. 225If, as the Council accepts is appropriate, the matter is to be dealt with by way of a buffer, the question is whether a buffer in the amount ordered is manifestly excessive. Her Honour accepted that Mr Pender had sustained a significant injury to his right shoulder but did not accept that the disability was as severe as Mr Pender described. Having regard to her Honour's acceptance that there were likely to be jobs for which Mr Pender is fit that would pay around the same or a little less than his wage as a ferry master, and the unreliability of Mr Pender's evidence as to his earning capacity, the award of $200,000 was in my view excessive. 226Had the findings on liability been sustained, I would have concluded that an appropriate buffer was $100,000 on the basis that this would reflect roughly a 20% loss of earning capacity (based on a $680 per week wage) over Mr Pender's working life, making an allowance of 15% for vicissitudes.

Ground 16 - future domestic assistance 227As to the award for future (paid) domestic assistance, her Honour found that Mr Pender was fit for normal weekly housework but that there might be limited non-recurring domestic activities for which Mr Pender would not be fit in the future (such as painting a house) and allowed a lump sum of $50,000. 228Mr Sexton submits that for a life expectancy of 50 years, $50,000 on the 5% tables equates to $50 per week. Reliance is placed on Miller v Galderisi [2009] NSWCA 353 at [15] - [20] for the proposition that Mr Pender was required to establish a need for paid domestic assistance. 229In Miller, this Court considered that an award that had been made for commercial assistance could not be justified in circumstances where it was made on the assumption that there was an immediate need that would continue for life for such assistance and it was clear that the respondent did not immediately require such assistance because it was being provided gratuitously by relatives. It was there accepted that circumstances might change and it was foreseeable that domestic assistance would be required from a commercial provider. However, it was not suggested that an award for such assistance be made in the absence of evidence as to the likely need for such future assistance. A number of variables were there considered, including the ability and willingness of others to provide assistance on a gratuitous basis. 230Mr Sexton submits that in circumstances where there was no evidence that Mr Pender owned a house; no evidence of any intention on his part to buy a house in the future; no evidence that even if he owned a house he would be minded, or have the need, to paint it; and no evidence in relation to future domestic assistance (other than normal weekly housework activities for which he was found to be fit), there should have been no allowance for future domestic assistance. 231Ms Norton submits that that there was evidence as to maintenance that Mr Pender could not do but did not point on appeal to any particular evidence of activities for which there was an immediate or likely future need for commercial assistance. Ms Norton noted, however, that Mr Pender was living in his parents' home, which might require maintenance in the future. 232Given the findings made by her Honour, I am not satisfied that there was a need established for commercial assistance in respect of the limited number of non-recurring domestic activities that it was found Mr Pender might not be able to do (at [84]) and therefore I consider that the $50,000 lump sum did not reflect an established need for commercial assistance. Had the findings on liability been sustained, I would have allowed this ground of appeal and set aside the award for commercial assistance.

Conclusion 233For the reasons above, I would make the following orders:

1. Appeal allowed.
2. Verdict and judgment of Balla DCJ and order 2 of the orders made on 30 March 2012 and entered on 2 April 2012 be set aside.
3. In lieu thereof order that there be verdict in favour of the appellant.
4. Order that the Respondent pay the Appellant's costs of the appeal and the proceedings in the District Court.

DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 10 July 2013