Edition 3/2000
O'Sullivan
claimed in the writ that the injury caused him to miss two
seasons. He alleged the injury substantially diminished and
affected his life and still caused him pain, incapacity and
discomfort. The writ stated that O'Sullivan was also disabled from
his work as a sales representative and although he returned to playing
football in 1995, he had a diminished capacity to play football and earn
income.
Another legal action involving the AFL occured in
1998. Essendon's Joe Misiti issued a Supreme Court Writ against the
AFL, alleging the hard MCG wicket area caused him to break his
jaw.
It is not just elite competition however, which has
exposure to litigation in regard to unsafe grounds. Another case
of note was Nowak V's Waverley Municipal Council (1984). During
a game Nowak stubbed his foot on one of the many protruding sprinklers
in the football field owned by the council and hired out to the league
for a fee and broke his leg. Nowak sued the Council, his club
and the league, claiming negligence.
Prior to the game in which he was injured Nowak inspected
the field and saw the sprinklers and knew their danger to those who
would be playing on the filed. Notwithstanding, Nowak and his
team members voted to play on the field rather than forfeit the
game. All three judges held that the league and the club owed
Nowak and the other team members a duty of care in the designation of
the grounds on which the football matches were to be played and that
they had breached that duty when they designated the particular
ground, with full knowledge of the dangers on that ground, and
maintained it as the designated ground.
The
majority of the Court also held that the Council was bound to ensure
that the football ground was fit and safe as far as reasonable care
and skill could make it.
|
|
This
duty of care was owed by the Council to the Plaintiff because the
Council hired out the ground for public purposes. The majority
held that the Plaintiffs knowledge, or warning, or the danger did not
necessarily negate any negligence on the part of the Council. The
provision of safe facilities for participants is critical for all
levels of sport. Any individual or organisation who fails to
meet their duty of care risks litigation. An effective risk
management program will ensure safe facilities and inspections are usually
an integral part of such a program. The establishment of a
procedure, the allocation of responsibility and a reporting mechanism
will assist in ensuring that inspections are conducted.
Pre-designed checklists or questionnaires should be used and retained
on record. Australian Standards may assist an organisation in
the risk management process. Common standards employed in the
sport and recreation industry include standards for synthetic
surfaces, lighting, playground equipment, helmets and pools. Simple
procedures not only reduce the likelihood of litigation but ensure
safe facilities are provided for participants to enjoy their sporting
experience.
Written
- By Rod
Hughes, IEA Sport
IEA has
offices in every state. National freecall number 1800 SPORT 1
(1800
77678 1)
Email:info@ieasport.com.au
The editor of the IEA Sport Monthly
Update is joint Chief Executive Officer, Rod Hughes. Disclaimer IEA
distributes the materials presented in this article as an information
source only. IEA makes no warranty or representation regarding
the accuracy or suitability for any purpose of the information
provided. IEA does not accept liability to any person or
organisation for the information provided in this article or for loss
or damages incurred as a result of reliance upon the material
contained in this article.
(Click
Here For Details)
|
