A receptionist who fractured her arm after tripping over a speed bump in a parking lot has had her substantial compensation reduced following an appeal. Nonetheless, she retains the majority of her financial award, despite having frequently driven and walked over the speed bump.
Grace Balacco, aged 67, took a fall in a Bondi Junction parking area in May 2023 and subsequently filed a lawsuit against the building’s owners corporation. The NSW Supreme Court ruled in her favor, attributing negligence to the corporation.
The incident occurred around 5:15 PM as Ms. Balacco was returning to her vehicle after her shift as a receptionist at a nearby medical practice belonging to neurologist Dr. Ron Granot, located within the same building.
Despite having navigated the concrete speed bump earlier that day, Ms. Balacco claimed she was not a regular user of the parking facility, and described the lighting conditions as somewhat dim at the time of her fall.
Importantly, she pointed out that while other potential tripping hazards in the car park had been marked with yellow paint, the speed bump was not highlighted until after her accident.
The speed bump was unmarked. Ms Balacco noted other tripping hazards in the car park were painted yellow, but the speed hump was only painted after the incident.
Ms Balacco said she had parked there after the Australian Federal Police asked her to move her car because roadworks were being carried out nearby.
She said due to a lack of available parking on the street she drove into the car park in question.
Grace Balacco was walking back to her car after finishing work as a receptionist at an adjacent medical practice in the same building in Bondi Junction when she tripped over a speed hump
The speed hump (pictured) which Grace Balacco fell over breaking her arm
There were two speed humps in the carpark, in addition to the one Ms Balacco slipped on. There is another nearby, straight ahead of Ms Balacco’s parking spot which she would have driven over twice in order to reverse into the spot
The original trial judge found in favour of Ms Balacco, largely due to the carpark’s inadequate lighting, and awarded her $385,484 in damages back in December 2024.
During cross-examination, she accepted that she had driven over the first speed hump, then driven over the second one twice as she reversed into the parking space and was aware they were there.
The owners corporation denied negligence, arguing the risk of tripping over the speed hump was known to Ms Balacco and constituted an obvious risk.
It also submitted she would not have acted any differently even if the hump had been painted or marked.
Ms Balacco’s win was later scaled back, with an appeal decision last week reducing the amount of compensation she will receive.
The Court of Appeal found the trial judge had awarded too much in damages, ruling Ms Balacco had been overcompensated by including about $85,000 for future economic loss and roughly $50,000 for future domestic assistance.
However, the court rejected the owners corporation’s argument that the judge had misunderstood the lighting conditions, or that the speed hump was an ‘obvious risk’ that did not need to be marked.
The Court of Appeal noted other tripping hazards in the car park had been clearly painted yellow, while the speed hump was not.
Ms Balacco was originally awarded $385,000 but this was reduced to $250,000 on appeal
It found that once some hazards are marked, people are entitled to expect that all similar hazards will be treated the same way.
Leaving the speed hump unmarked meant it was less obvious than it would otherwise have been.
As a result, the court upheld the finding of negligence, meaning the owners corporation remained liable despite its appeal.
Sydney property lawyer Fadi Chahine said the speed hump had been in place unmarked in the car park since 1987.
‘She was the first reported fall,’ he told the Daily Mail.
‘But the court had to decide whether leaving one hazard unmarked when others were clearly marked made it less obvious.
‘Fair outcome or people should just watch where they’re going?’
Gilchrist Connell principal Nicole Norris said the decision raises the bar for owners corporations and controllers of carparks.
She said the bottom line is that inconsistent safety measures can make areas more dangerous, not less.
‘Where other ‘irregularities’ in carparks are identified with paint markings, a speed hump may not be found to be an obvious risk unless similarly identified,’ she said.
‘If an occupier is going to create any paint markings as warnings, it should be prepared to mark all potential hazards.’
