If someone is injured in a public place, such as a shopping center, council walkway, or entertainment venue, the central question becomes whether the injury happened because someone else failed to take proper care. In other words, was there negligence?
In Australia, negligence is not assumed simply because an accident occurred. It must be determined through a clear, practical process that examines who was responsible, what was (or wasn’t) done, and whether the injury could have been avoided. Here’s how that process unfolds.
Identifying Who Was Responsible for Safety
The process begins by identifying who was responsible for maintaining the safety of the area where the injury occurred. This could be an occupier, a property manager, a local council, or an event organiser.
Establishing this responsibility is often one of the first steps reviewed by public liability solicitors when assessing whether a public injury event may involve negligence. If the claimant was lawfully in the area and the responsible party had control over the environment, responsibility for safety is usually established at this stage.
Assessing Whether Proper Care Was Taken
Once responsibility is established, the next step is to assess whether the party in question breached their duty of care by failing to take reasonable steps to prevent harm. This involves looking at how the area was managed: were regular inspections carried out, were known hazards addressed promptly, and were risk mitigation measures in place?
For example, if a wet floor was left unattended without signage, or if broken steps were left unrepaired for weeks, these may indicate a failure to uphold a standard of care. The condition of the area prior to the injury and how long any hazard was present are key considerations at this stage.
Linking the Hazard to the Injury
It must then be shown that the unsafe condition directly caused the injury. This is referred to as causation, and without it, the claim may fail. It’s not enough that something was dangerous—there needs to be a clear causal link between that danger and the injury sustained by the person involved.
For instance, if someone tripped on a loose tile and sprained their ankle, the question is whether the tile was the proximate cause of the fall. Evidence like incident reports, photographs, witness accounts, and medical records is often relied on to establish this connection.
Evaluating Whether the Risk Could Have Been Avoided
Even if a risk existed, it must be determined whether it was reasonably foreseeable and whether the defendant took appropriate action to address it in accordance with the reasonable foreseeability test. The law doesn’t require perfection; only that steps were taken to prevent harm that could have been anticipated.
For example, if a known hazard had existed for some time without corrective action, this may demonstrate negligent conduct. On the other hand, a sudden or hidden danger that couldn’t have been identified in time may not amount to a breach of duty.
Reaching a Decision Based on the Evidence
The final stage involves weighing all the evidence and applying the balance of probabilities test. This means deciding whether it is more likely than not that the injury occurred due to negligence. Insurers or courts review who had the duty, whether that duty was breached, whether damage was caused, and whether the harm was not too remote from the event.
Negligence is determined not by intent, but by failure to act as a reasonable person would in the same circumstances. If the evidence shows that appropriate care was not taken and that led directly to the injury, liability may be established.
What This Means for Injury Claims
Determining negligence in public injury events is not guesswork—it’s a methodical process grounded in evidence, responsibility, and reasonable expectations. Each case hinges on whether a duty existed, whether it was breached, and whether that breach caused harm that could have been prevented. While the law does involve technical elements, the goal is straightforward: to protect the public from avoidable harm and to hold the right parties accountable when that protection fails. For those affected, understanding this process is the first step toward informed action.
