Authored by Jason Hudson.
In March 2026, the High Court dismissed a claim against a municipality for injuries sustained when a claimant’s foot became trapped in an uncovered belltoby hole while sprinting after thieves. The court held that the municipality's failure to cover the hole or warn the public was not wrongful, given the unusual circumstances in which the injury occurred.
A belltoby is a cast iron structure installed beneath road or pavement surfaces to give municipal workers access to valves in water distribution pipes. When the removable lid is missing, it leaves a circular hole approximately 11cm in diameter. Belltoby lids are frequently stolen for scrap metal.
The claimant was returning from a fuel station with friends in the early hours of the morning when thieves snatched a friend's cell phone. He immediately sprinted after the culprits, and his foot became trapped in an open belltoby hole on the pavement, fracturing his lower leg.
The claimant knew of the open hole and admitted it had been uncovered for close to a year. He accepted that had he been walking, he would not have stepped into it and agreed that the chances of anyone getting hurt by stepping into a belltoby were extremely slim.
The court applied established principles regarding municipal liability for omissions, noting that no general immunity or blanket obligation to repair exists. Each case turns on whether, according to the legal convictions of the community, it is reasonable to impose liability on a municipality for the harm resulting from its conduct.
The court found that the hole was small, visible, situated in the middle of a wide pavement with ample space on either side, and did not protrude above the surface. The municipality had no record of any claim arising from a person falling at an open belltoby hole, despite having approximately 90 000 across the municipal area and the prevalence of lid theft.
The court also considered the claimant's unique behaviour. Because he was sprinting with his forefoot pointing vertically downward, landing perfectly in the hole, the risk and foreseeability of such harm were very low. The community's passive approach towards reporting the hole, despite it being open for up to a year, suggested that residents did not view it as a significant risk.
Accordingly, the municipality's omission was not wrongful, and therefore no liability could arise. Even if wrongfulness had been established, the municipality would not have been negligent because a reasonable local authority would not have foreseen injury occurring in the highly unusual circumstances that unfolded.
The court emphasised that its finding did not establish a general principle that municipalities can never be held liable for belltoby-related injuries. Different circumstances may yield different results.
Municipalities cannot guard against all conceivable harm on public pavements and that members of the public bear some responsibility for navigating minor, visible hazards. Nevertheless, municipalities should continue to prioritise repairs and maintenance of public infrastructure to prevent foreseeable harm.