A Win for Child Injury Claimants
Case Summary: Court of Appeal Victory in Leisure Centre Injury Case
Randwick City Council v Wunderwald
A recent New South Wales Court of Appeal decision has reinforced important protections for injured children and strengthened the legal position of plaintiffs in occupier liability cases.
Six-year-old Lily Wunderwald suffered a serious head injury when a tall, unstable café table toppled onto her at the Des Renford Leisure Centre in Maroubra on 31 January 2020. The table—approximately her height—collapsed when she held its edge, causing a laceration to her forehead that cut to the bone. She required hospitalization and will bear a permanent scar.
The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s finding of negligence and awarded Lily $125,300 in damages. While the Court reduced the award by removing a speculative component, it decisively rejected the defendant’s arguments and affirmed core principles favourable to injured plaintiffs.
The Court firmly rejected the Council’s argument that an accident-free history means no risk exists. The judges held that even without prior incidents, a facility operator is liable if:
- An item is inherently unstable (requiring only “very modest force” to topple)
- Many children will foreseeably interact with it
- Serious injury is a potential consequence
This is significant because it means Defendants cannot hide behind and argument that “this has never happened before.” Courts will assess actual risk based on the item’s characteristics and the environment.
The Council through its insurer tried to argue that the burden of precautions should account for all café furniture risks—low tables, stools, children climbing and falling. The Court rejected this tactical move, holding that “similar risks” under the Civil Liability Act must share the same essential character.
This means Defendants cannot avoid liability by redefining the problem. If dangerous furniture caused injury, they can’t escape responsibility by pointing to other, unrelated hazards in the space.
The Court confirmed that when a dangerous item exists in a child-frequented space, a reasonable operator must either secure it permanently to the floor, or remove it entirely setting a clear standard for facility operators.
Lily received $112,500 for non-economic loss (pain, suffering, permanent scarring) and $12,800 for future out-of-pocket expenses (psychological therapy and scar revision surgery). The Court did reduce the award by $50,000 that the trial judge had awarded as a “buffer” for potential future economic loss. However, this reflects a technical requirement under s 13 of the Civil Liability Act—not a weakness in the plaintiff’s case. The Court emphasized that future economic loss awards must be based on solid evidentiary foundations, not speculation. This actually protects plaintiffs by ensuring awards are sustainable and not vulnerable to challenge.
This decision reinforces that:
✓ Facility operators have clear duties to identify and eliminate hazards that could injure children
✓ Absence of prior incidents is not a defense when an item is inherently unstable
✓ Children’s natural curiosity is foreseeable—operators must account for it
✓ Serious injuries from falling furniture are preventable—and liability follows when prevention measures aren’t taken
This case provides strong precedent for other injury claims involving:
- Unstable furniture in public spaces
- Child injuries at leisure facilities, cafés, and entertainment venues
- Premises liability where the hazard is easily identifiable and preventable
If you or a family member has been injured due to unsafe premises or equipment, this case demonstrates that courts will hold operators accountable. Contact us to discuss your claim.