Matters in the Media

She Slipped on His Wet Steps in the Dark. He Hosed Them at 3pm. He Paid $650,000.

Silwood v Chandler

A woman dropped her baby off at her ex-partner's house at 8.30pm and slipped on the front steps — which he had hosed five and a half hours earlier and never dried. The external light wasn't on. She put her arm through a glass pane and sustained serious injuries. She won $650,000.

This case is a key Queensland decision on occupier's liability — what you owe to people who visit your home, and what happens when you create a hazard and fail to warn them about it.

Get Free Advice → 📞 0410 901 831
$650,000
Total damages awarded
5.5hrs
Between hosing the steps and the plaintiff's arrival
0
Prior incidents — no previous accidents didn't mean no foreseeable risk
The Case

Silwood v Chandler

The parties had a child together but were no longer in a relationship. They had agreed the plaintiff would drop the baby off at the defendant's house that evening so she could get some rest. At about 8.30pm she arrived at his house, where a short concrete path led from the driveway to a small tiled area with two tiled steps in front of the front door.

There was an external light that would have illuminated the area, but it was not on. The plaintiff cut across the path toward the steps, slipped on one of them, put her outstretched arm through a pane of glass and sustained serious injuries to her right arm.

The cause of the slippery surface was this: earlier that day, the defendant had noticed bat droppings on the front wall of the house. At 3pm he had hosed the area immediately adjacent to the steps. He did nothing to dry them before the plaintiff arrived five and a half hours later.

Read the full judgment on Queensland Judgements
Don't feel like reading? Watch our breakdown on TikTok

No prior accidents. No warning given. No light on. His problem.

The defendant argued he had never had concerns about his stairs before, no accidents had ever occurred on them, and therefore the risk was not foreseeable. The court rejected this. His own conduct after the incident — volunteering to the plaintiff that there was a possibility the steps were wet — showed he was aware they might still be in that condition. The absence of prior incidents, the court noted, may simply have been a matter of luck.

The court accepted expert engineering evidence that the residual moisture created a moderate to high risk of slipping, based on friction measurements using Australian Standards testing. Combined with the poor lighting — the external light was off and the front door faced away from the street — the risk of injury to a visitor was significant and reasonably foreseeable.

A reasonable person in the defendant's position would have dried the steps, warned the plaintiff when they spoke by phone beforehand that the steps might be wet, or at minimum ensured the external light was on so the plaintiff had some prospect of seeing the hazard. He did none of these things. The appeal, which included an argument that the plaintiff's route across the path was not a foreseeable use of the steps, was dismissed. The Court of Appeal found he knew perfectly well she would take a direct route to the door.

Trial and appeal — both found for the plaintiff

The defendant tried two arguments on appeal: that the plaintiff's route across the path wasn't a foreseeable use, and that the risk wasn't foreseeable at all. Both failed.

Supreme Court — Trial

Wet steps, no light, no warning — foreseeable risk established

Expert evidence confirmed residual moisture on the steps. The defendant's own post-incident statement suggested he knew they might still be wet. The area was poorly lit with the external light off. A reasonable person in his position would have dried the steps, warned the plaintiff, or turned the light on. He did none of those things.

✓ Found for plaintiff — $650,000 awarded
Court of Appeal — Dismissed

Taking a direct path to the door was entirely predictable

The defendant argued the plaintiff had used the steps in an unexpected way by cutting across the path. The Court of Appeal rejected this. The defendant knew perfectly well that a visitor arriving at his front door would take a direct route. That was not an unforeseeable use — it was the obvious one. The appeal was dismissed in full.

✓ Appeal dismissed — judgment upheld

Three key findings from this case

This case clarifies several important points about what occupiers owe to visitors — including people who come to your home.

FINDING 01

No previous accidents doesn't mean no foreseeable risk

Courts won't simply accept that because something has never gone wrong before, a risk wasn't foreseeable. Where an occupier has taken an action that creates a hazard — like hosing steps before a night-time visit — the absence of prior incidents is not a complete defence. It may have simply been a matter of luck.

FINDING 02

Creating a hazard carries a duty to manage it

The defendant didn't just fail to prevent a naturally occurring hazard — he created it. Hosing the steps five and a half hours before a night-time visitor arrived, without drying them, without warning the visitor, and without turning on the external light, crossed the line from acceptable risk to foreseeable danger.

FINDING 03

Visitors will use the most direct route — that's foreseeable

The defendant argued the plaintiff's route across the path wasn't the intended approach. The court disagreed. An occupier who invites someone to their front door must account for the fact that visitors will naturally take the most direct path available. That is not an unforeseeable use — it is the expected one.

Alex's Take
"

The distinction this case draws is an important one. Courts don't expect your home to be spotless or hazard-free. But if you've taken an action that creates a risk — hosing your steps, spilling something, leaving a mat out of place — and you then invite someone onto your premises without warning them, you've done something qualitatively different from simply failing to maintain the property.

The lighting point is also worth noting. Turning on an external light before an 8.30pm visitor arrives costs nothing and takes seconds. That's the kind of simple, obvious precaution that courts have little patience for when it's not taken. You don't need to fix everything — but you do need to make the things you've created visible.

What this case says in plain terms: if you create a hazard, warn people about it. If you can't warn them, illuminate it. If you can't illuminate it, fix it. Doing none of the three — especially when you knew someone was coming — is where liability starts.

Alex Bassingthwaighte
Alex Bassingthwaighte
Founder & Principal, Claimwise
Ready when you are

Tell us what happened.

One conversation. No pressure. Tell us a bit about your situation and we'll be in touch.

Make an Enquiry

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Get Free Advice →