Voli v Inglewood Shire Council
110 CLR 74(Judgment by: DIXON CJ)
Between: VOLI
And: INGLEWOOD SHIRE COUNCIL
Judges:
Dixon CJWindeyer J
Owen J
Subject References:
Negligence
Architectural plans
Approved by Government Department
Dangerous premises built from plans
Injury
Liability
Apportionment
Judgment date: 29 May 1963
MELBOURNE
Judgment by:
DIXON CJ
This case presents an unusual aspect of the general problem relating to the safety of structures which has so much troubled the courts of late years. There are two defendants respondents. One, the Inglewood Shire Council, which is sued as the proprietor of a structure let for entertainment or enjoyment for brief periods. The other defendant respondent is the architect who designed the structure and may be regarded as responsible for its not proving capable of supporting the weight which in the event proved to be required of it on the particular occasion. I take the view that the proprietor of the structure, the municipality, which let it to the association one of whose members, having been injured, sues as plaintiff, was under a duty to show ordinary care in seeing that it was reasonably safe for the use to which it was known it would be put. I think Brown J. in his judgment showed clearly that he believed that the required standard of care was not attained in providing directions or warnings or some limitation as to the weight which the platform could bear. In my opinion the architect was under a duty of care expressed in terms of ordinary negligence so to design the platform as to make it safe for any burden reasonably to be expected, that is to say, if the platform were employed in the ordinary way for supporting human beings mounting thereon, without any violent or unusual movement.
I think that the conclusion of Brown J. turned on an erroneous application of the particular reservation made by Lord Atkin with reference to a case of an article of manufacture put up for retail sale and his introduction of the condition that there should not be any intermediate opportunity of inspection or examination: Donoghue v Stevenson. [F1] I agree, however, that the finding that the design was not sufficiently safe and that no sufficient precautions were taken to secure its safety cannot be interfered with by this Court.
I am therefore of opinion that the appeal must be allowed. I have had the benefit of reading the judgment of Windeyer J. and I concur in the reasons which His Honour has given and in the order proposed.