mini said
In NSW this has already been the subject of authoritative consideration: see Ridis v Strata Plan 10308 [2005] NSWCA 246
I wonder if this ruling is too specific to be taken as ‘accepted law’? A pane of glass in a door would be different from, say, a hole in a concrete floor that breaks an ankle or a stairway handrail that gives way when someone leans on it.
In the first instance, the glass was fulfilling its major function, in the cases that I cited (which are not all that uncommon) the common property is not fulfilling its intended use.
I’m not saying Mini is wrong, just that I’m not convinced this applies to all circumstances.
And if there is no comeback for injuries caused by a failure of common property why does everyone get agitated (often needlessly) about OHS issues?
Perhaps the distinction is that the plaintiff in this case was bound by Strata law (being an owner) whereas an outsider would be able to call on a whole other raft of legislation.
Anyone with any other thoughts?