ASSUMING THE RISK OF PARTICIPATION IN SPORT...

At Thursday’s training session Lanyon was running when his left foot went into the depression and he ruptured his Achilles tendon.  He sued the club for negligently failing to ensure the ground was safe for use.

Was the club negligent?  The court said no.

It said the club was under an obligation to Lanyon to take reasonable care to ensure the ground was safe for use. 

In the circumstances, its inspection of the ground prior to training was a reasonable response to the risk presented by the depression.  The club could also rely on the requirement that coaches – including Lanyon – had to inspect the ground prior to training. 

The fact that the depression escaped attention does not of itself mean that the inspection system in place was not followed or was deficient.  The club was not the insurers of Lanyon’s safety and had done the best it could in the circumstances. 

The court said it would be unreasonable to expect a volunteer organisation to have the ground free of unevenness at all times.  It did not have to produce a surface suitable for lawn bowls or croquet.  It was a matter of common experience that a football ground from time to time has rough patches on its surface. 

Page  2

The third case is Buttita v Strathfield Municipal Council [2001] NSWCA 365.  Buttita paid his green fees and played a round of golf at the defendant’s course.  Although the weather at the time was fine, it had been raining heavily overnight and the course was wet with water lying around.  On the 16^th hole, the plaintiff overshot the green and was at the bottom of a moderately steep downward slope.  As he walked down the slope he slid and fell, breaking his ankle.  The plaintiff sued the defendant.

Was the golf course owner (the council) negligent?  The court said no. 

A golf course is not required to protect golfers from every foreseeable risk on the course but only to take reasonable care to make a course safe.  Golf courses are not nurseries.  They have grass, dirt and slopes that may be slippery during and after rain.  Reasonable care to make a course safe for the purpose of playing golf does not require that every slope that may be slippery, either is not initially constructed, or is re-configured, or is barricaded off or signposted.  The player in this case could have easily seen the slope was slippery and walked around the edge of the green. 

Participation in a sport involves an appreciation of the risks of that participation.  No breach of duty was established and the court confirmed that the golf course owner was not the player’s nursemaid.                                                              Continue...