In a decision that has sent shockwaves through the reading room, students studying in the law library have alleged that the seating has fallen well below the standard of a reasonable chair, in flagrant breach of its basic duty of care.

"The foreseeability of harm was obvious," said second-year student and repeat sufferer Mia Backhurst, gesturing at a chair she described as "more of a torture apparatus than a place to sit." "I've basically run the Bolam test in my head. No reasonable seat manufacturer would do this to a person."

The alleged breach centres on a design so uncomfortable that several students report losing feeling in their lower body somewhere between the second and third hour of a single sitting, a phenomenon one student has taken to calling "constructive numbness."

"I was reading a case about causation and honestly I couldn't tell if the pain radiating down my leg was sciatica or just, like, vibes," said fourth-year student Tom Ashcroft. "Either way, I think I've suffered actionable damage."

Library staff have denied any wrongdoing, maintaining that the seats meet the relevant standard of care "for a chair, not a spa."

"We assessed the risk and considered it reasonable in the circumstances," said Head Librarian Deborah Finch, who was reportedly unable to make eye contact while standing near the offending furniture. "Also, have you seen our budget?"

Some students have gone further, arguing the library owed them a non-delegable duty given the "special relationship" created by mandatory attendance during exam period, and are said to be exploring remedies including specific performance, in the form of a cushion.

At time of publication, the library had not confirmed whether it intended to defend the claim, settle out of court, or simply replace the seats before Obiter finds out who upholstered them.

Judgment reserved.