INSIGHTS: Personal Injury Claim Dismissed in Scooter Collision Case

Leibbrandt v City of Joondalup [2025] WADC 31

Overview

The District Court of Western Australia recently handed down its decision in Leibbrandt v City of Joondalup, a case involving a personal injury claim after a scooter rider collided with a fence post along a shared-use pathway. The Court dismissed the claim, finding that while a risk of harm was foreseeable, the City had not breached its duty of care.

This decision offers useful guidance for occupiers, local governments, and public authorities managing pedestrian infrastructure.

Background

During January 2022, the plaintiff, Mrs Kirstin Leibbrandt, was riding her electric scooter on a shared path in Hillarys, heading towards a yacht club. After hearing a bicycle bell behind her, she moved to the far left of the path to make way. Her scooter made contact with a timber fence post situated near the path, causing her to fall and sustain injuries.

Mrs Leibbrandt alleged that the City of Joondalup was negligent in failing to ensure adequate clearance between the path and the fence. The City argued that the accident resulted from rider error and that the pathway design met reasonable safety expectations.

Key Legal Issues

The Court considered several questions:

• Did the City owe a duty of care under statute and common law?
• Was there a foreseeable risk of injury due to the fence’s position?
• Did the City fail to take reasonable precautions?
• Was the plaintiff’s conduct a contributing or sole cause of the accident?

Court’s Findings

• Duty of Care: The Court accepted that the City owed a duty under both the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1985 (WA) and common law.
• Foreseeability: It was foreseeable that a path user might strike the fence and be injured.
• Breach: No breach was found. The path was 4.02m wide and otherwise well-constructed. The fence post was only slightly closer (by 4cm) than the advisory minimum in the Austroads Guides The Court emphasised that non-compliance with such guidelines does not infer negligence.
• Causation: The evidence was unclear on whether the scooter was still on the path when it struck the post. The plaintiff was found to be travelling at an excessive speed (20–25 km/h) for a busy shared path and had unnecessarily veered too far left.

Decision

The plaintiff’s claim was dismissed. The Court concluded that the accident was caused by rider behaviour rather than any failure by the City to design or maintain the path safely.

Implications

This case confirms that:

• Local authorities are not strictly liable for every hazard on public pathways.
• Design standards such as the Austroads Guides are informative, but not determinative.
• Plaintiff conduct – such as overcorrection or excessive speed – can break the chain of causation in personal injury claims.
• A well-maintained path, even if not perfectly aligned with all best-practice standards, may still meet the legal threshold of “reasonable care.”

Further information

This article was written by Principal Mark Birbeck and Associate Louis van Bergen. For further information or advice on any related matters please contact Mark.

Disclaimer: This information is current as of June 2025. This article does not constitute legal advice and does not give rise to any solicitor/client relationship between Meridian Lawyers and the reader. Professional legal advice should be sought before acting or relying upon the content of this article.