If a local government is aware of an incident, it should consider if it requires further review (in terms of the existence of a possible systemic problem).
If intending to provide a risk warning, it should be specific (and helpfully identify the risk), and not make general observations of potential concern.
Local governments should not be satisfied that simply because a piece of infrastructure was compliant in accordance with past standards, that it remains so.
The local government should know that, if they invite the public to use some form of infrastructure, it would likely owe a duty as to its condition.
The Court found that while the Council believed the jetty complied with appropriate standards, this was merely a relevant factor in determining whether the Council exercised reasonable care.
This case imposed a significant financial liability upon the Council (to say nothing of course of the serious injury suffered by the plaintiff).
Ultimately, given the previous incidents of a similar nature, which the Council was aware of, the Court found it was not satisfactory for the council to have taken no action to address the known risks, simply because it was satisfied that the jetty complied with the relevant standards.
The positive is that the adoption of an effective risk management regime will avoid the repetition of such liabilities in Western Australia.