by clicking the arrows at the side of the page, or by using the toolbar.
by clicking anywhere on the page.
by dragging the page around when zoomed in.
by clicking anywhere on the page when zoomed in.
web sites or send emails by clicking on hyperlinks.
Email this page to a friend
Search this issue
Index - jump to page or section
Archive - view past issues
REIQ Journal : August 2008
LEGAL ISSUES 29 The Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim on the grounds that the timer light switch was not faulty and, if activated properly, would have provided sufficient light to enable the plaintiff to descend the stairs. The court therefore found that the plaintiff’s fall was caused by her own failure to properly activate the light switch before descending the stairs. decision In June 2008, the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by the plaintiff against the Supreme Court’s decision, finding that the timer light switch and the stairs were not defective in any way and that the plaintiff had failed to establish negligence on the part of either the property manager or the body corporate (Rogers v Body Corporate for the Waterloo Crest & Anor  QCA 174). In her appeal, the plaintiff sought to emphasise expert engineering evidence that she had tendered during the trial that the stairs were defective in a number of respects, including: The fact that there was a variation in riser heights between the stair treads (that is, some stairs were higher than others); The stairs were carpeted, such that it was difficult to see the edge of the stair treads against the background of the next stairs; and The shape of the nosing (the edge) of the stair treads was such that it could lead to a false impression of where the true edge of the stair tread was. REIQ Journal August 2008