Australia: Householder's liability – trip and fall on wire mesh

Curwoods Case Note
Last Updated: 3 November 2012
Article by Iain Miller

Sibraa v Brown [2012] NSWCA 328

Judgment date: 12 October 2012

Jurisdiction: New South Wales Court of Appeal 1

In Brief

  • Whether a risk is "not insignificant" in accordance with the Civil Liability Act 2002 (the CLA), s 5B(1)(b) is to be judged as at the time the risk is created, and therefore a plaintiff's knowledge of the presence of that risk prior to the accident does not mean that the risk was "not insignificant".
  • Confirmed the general principle that in all cases the duty is essentially one of reasonableness. An occupier cannot be expected to eliminate all possible hazards or remove defects, such as imperfections in concrete driveways, which are endemic in all but the most obsessively-maintained premises.
  • A reasonable householder would not take the precaution of removing mundane objects, such as children's toys, garden hoses, or furniture, from their front lawns in the event that people come onto their property at night.


On the evening of 8 May 2007, Dorothy Brown (the plaintiff), aged 60 at the time of the accident, was injured when, in the dark and barefoot, she tripped over some welded wire mesh that was lying on the front lawn of her neighbour's, Mr Sibraa (the defendant)'s, house.

In the early part of 2007, the defendant often left his and other related children (aged variously between 13 and 14 years) alone at the house while he was away for work. The plaintiff agreed to "keep an eye open for the children to make sure that there was nobody hanging around at night when they were there by themselves".

In late March or early April 2007, two police officers attended the defendant's house and following this the plaintiff increased her attention, often staying at the defendant's house while he was away, supervising the children and undertaking some domestic tasks.

On the day of the accident, a piece of wire mesh lay on the ground in the front yard of the defendant's house, close to the beginning of a path that led down the right-hand side of the house. The mesh was described as "concrete reinforcing mesh ... made of iron or steel and appears to be much thicker and much more durable than, for example, chicken wire." It was inferred that the defendant had laid this mesh over seeded grass to assist it to grow in an area where it had been eroded.

At about 7.30 pm on 8 May 2007, the plaintiff attended the defendant's house to check on two of the children who had some issues earlier that evening. The area was dark, despite an exterior light by the side of the front door, and during the course of moving from the front door of the defendant's house to the rear of the property, the plaintiff tripped on the wire mesh, causing her to fall and suffer injury. The exterior light was turned off at the time by the girls as they thought the mother of one of the girls was approaching the home and they wanted to pretend they were not there as she had run away from home.

District Court

Following a trial in the District Court at Albury, his Honour Neilson J held that the plaintiff's injuries arose from the negligence of the defendant.

The primary judge noted that the plaintiff did not use the concrete driveway but walked around on the lawn and when she did so she had forgotten that the steel mesh was on the lawn.

In coming to his decision the primary judge considered, amongst other things, that:

  1. each piece of iron or steel in the mesh had an end which itself provided danger to persons seeking to traverse it, and it therefore provided an obvious tripping risk;
  2. in daylight the risk the mesh constituted would be "fairly obvious", but at night it was not obvious, and it was not "the usual sort of risk one would encounter on a suburban lawn"; and
  3. a reasonable man in the defendant's position would have foreseen that his conduct in placing the mesh on the front lawn involved a risk of injury to a class of persons (meaning, amongst other things, any person who had any lawful reason to enter the property) that included the plaintiff.

Ultimately the primary judge concluded that, given the magnitude of the risk, the degree of probability of a risk occurring, along with the expense, difficulty and inconvenience of taking any alleviating action and conflicting responsibilities which the defendant may have, there was no need for the mesh to be there and the defendant ought to have removed or illuminated it at night.

The defendant appealed against the finding of negligence.

Court of Appeal

The appeal was brought by the defendant on the grounds that the primary judge, applying ss 5B and 5C of the CLA, erred in his conclusions.

Was the risk "not insignificant"? - s 5B(1)(b)

Counsel for the defendant did not take issue that the risk of someone injuring themselves by tripping on the mesh was foreseeable, in accordance with s 5B(1)(a). However, it was submitted that the risk was insignificant and therefore s 5B(1)(b) had not been satisfied.

This submission was made on the basis that, amongst other things:

  1. on the evidence, the only person, other than the children, who might have been in the area at any time whilst the defendant was away, was the plaintiff;
  2. there was no reason to anticipate that a person attending the premises at night and attempting to access the back door would not have the benefit of the external lighting. In this case it had been turned off by the children, but for an unusual reason;
  3. the plaintiff was the defendant's neighbour and was familiar with the area;
  4. the plaintiff knew of the presence of the wire mesh prior to her accident;
  5. the mesh was small and was sitting on the front lawn and did not pose a risk to anyone except a person walking in the area without shoes at night.

Campbell JA, in delivering the unanimous judgment, did not accept the above submissions, noting that the "risk" referred to in s 5B(1)(b) is not to be identified solely by reference to the risk that the plaintiff might harm herself, rather it was to be understood with reference to the definition of "harm" found in s 5, which, in this particular matter, referred to "personal injury or death". This was to be contrasted with the "particular harm" referred to in s 5D(1), which is the harm that the particular plaintiff has sustained.

Section 5B of the CLA requires the risk to be assessed prospectively, that is, a risk of harm that has not yet happened, or in other words, a harm that might be suffered by anyone to whom the defendant owed a duty of care as a consequence of the failure to take the precautions referred to in s 5B(1).

Campbell JA noted that:

  1. apart from the particular circumstances that resulted in the plaintiff attending the premises, as a matter of common knowledge it was "foreseeable that domestic premises in a town could be visited by a variety of people. There was nothing to stop anyone who might be so inclined from opening the front gate of the premises and walking onto the front lawn";
  2. whether the risk of leaving the mesh there was "not insignificant" was to be judged as at the time it was left there, and therefore the plaintiff's knowledge of the presence of the mesh prior to the accident did not mean that the risk was "not insignificant";
  3. the risk of harm that arises from a failure to take a precaution is the risk of all the harm that might be caused to a person who is owed a duty of care by the failure to take that precaution. It is not just the risk of the particular type of harm that befell a plaintiff; and
  4. the standard for a risk being "not insignificant" is not particularly high, referring to Macfarlan JA in Shaw v Thomas 2 , who, in approving Mason J's comments in Wyong Shire Council v Shirt, confirmed that the requirement set out in s 5B(1)(b) is not much more demanding than the risk being "not far-fetched or fanciful" and "real and therefore foreseeable".

In conclusion, Campbell JA found that it was foreseeable that a visitor might encounter the mesh, might trip on it, and thereby there was a risk that injuries that were more than insignificant might result.

Precautions of a Householder - s 5B(1)(c)

Campbell JA did not agree with the primary judge's finding that a reasonable person in the defendant's position would have taken precautions against the risk of harm. In coming to his conclusion, Campbell JA considered the line of authority concerning the reasonable care adopted by householders, in particular:

  1. Neindorf v Junkovic 3 , where the High Court held that a householder was not liable when a visitor to the premises tripped on an uneven surface in the driveway of his home while attending a garage sale. That accident occurred in daylight and arose from a static condition of the premises; and
  2. Jaenke v Hinton 4 , where the Queensland Court of Appeal held that a householder had not breached a common law duty of care when a milk deliverer injured herself when, at night, she tripped on a hose on the householder's lawn. The plaintiff in that case was familiar with the premises, had observed the hose in the yard previously, and had a torch.

This line of authority deals with the question as to the extent to which it is reasonable to require occupiers to protect entrants from a risk of injury associated with the condition of the premises, and confirmed the general principle that in all cases the duty is essentially one of reasonableness. An occupier cannot be expected to eliminate all possible hazards or remove defects, such as imperfections in concrete driveways, which are endemic in all but the most obsessively-maintained premises.

Would a reasonable person have taken those precautions? – s 5B(2)

Section 5B(2) provides 4 criteria when determining whether a reasonable person would have taken precautions against a risk of harm, these being:

Section 5B(2)(a) - the probability that the harm would occur if care were not taken:

In this respect Campbell JA took the following circumstances into consideration:

  1. it was on private property;
  2. it was not the ordinary means of access from the front gate to the front door and people unfamiliar with the defendant's habit of locking the security door and who visited the premises would not have taken a path encountering the mesh;
  3. an occupier of land, considering what reasonable care requires of himself, is entitled to take into account that trespassers are the exception rather than the rule;
  4. the particular sequence of events leading to the subject accident were "most unusual";
  5. given the particular characteristics of the mesh, the risk of someone wearing sandals or thongs tripping on the mesh was slight; and
  6. only a highly inattentive visitor would have suffered a risk of tripping on the mesh during daylight hours.

Section 5B(2)(b) - the likely seriousness of the harm:

In this respect, Campbell JA found that, whilst the plaintiff suffered some significant injury (including aggravation of pre-existing degenerative disease in her lumbar spine), it was unlikely that anyone who suffered an injury as a consequence of encountering the mesh would have suffered injuries as serious as that.

Section 5B(2)(c) - the burden of taking precautions to avoid the risk of harm:

Campbell JA noted that it was necessary to consider not only the very small burden that would have been involved in picking the mesh up, or lighting it, but also the burden of taking precautions to avoid any similar risks of harm that were in the defendant's yard.

Section 5B(2)(d) - the social utility of the activity that creates the risk of harm:

In this respect Campbell JA noted that while aesthetic factors such as presenting a well-maintained lawn to the street are not to ignored, it had "quite slight" social utility.

Ultimately, Campbell JA concluded that it was not uncommon for householders to leave objects lying on their lawn like a hose, a gardening tool, a child's toy, or other obstructions such as a tap or garden furniture. A reasonable householder would take no precautions concerning such objects in case people came onto his or her property at night, and many householders would therefore be surprised to be told that reasonable behaviour required hem to clear all obstacles form the lawns before each nightfall. Accordingly, the defendant did not fail to take reasonable care by leaving the mesh where it was and unlit.


This matter serves to confirm the standard of reasonableness that will be applied to accidents that occur to lawful entrants on residential property, applying the principles in ss 5B and 5C of the CLA.

The decision also provides further guidance for factors to be taken into account when considering any breach on the part of an occupier of residential property, noting that the underlying principle of reasonableness is paramount.

The standard of care owed by the occupier of residential premises is lower than that expected of an occupier of commercial premises and highlights the difficulties faced by plaintiffs in proving breach of duty in householder cases.


1 Campbell and Hoeben JJA and Tobias AJA
2 [2010] NSWCA 169
3 [2005] HCA 75
4 [1995] QCA 484

Ranked No 1 - Australia's fastest growing law firm' (Legal Partnership Survey, The Australian July 2010)

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Mondaq Advice Centre (MACs)
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.