Edition 03/2003
ASSUMING
THE RISK OF PARTICIPATION IN SPORT
Our
November 2002 Monthly Update referred to court decisions in favour of
the Richmond Valley Council and the Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW
after they had been subject to litigation as a result of trip and fall
incidents on footpaths for which they were responsible.
At the time it was suggested that perhaps the liability tide
was turning. In this
edition of our IEA Monthly Update we look at three decisions handed
down in recent times that specifically relate to sporting incidents
and support the proposition that participation in sport involves an
inherent risk of injury that should be accepted by the participant.
In
Woods v Multi-Sports Holdings Pty Ltd [2002] HCA 9, the High Court of
Australia delivered a decision in the case of Woods, an experienced
cricketer who had played indoor cricket only once before when he
suffered a serious eye injury at a centre owned and operated by
Multi-Sport, who had organized the game and provided protective
equipment, but no safety helmets.
While
batting, Woods, 32, attempted a hook shot but edged the ball into his
right eye and subsequently lost the use of that eye.
Allegedly Multi-Sport was negligent in that it failed to
provide any warning or install any warning sign about the dangers of
indoor cricket, and in particular the risk of serious eye injury; and
failed to provide Woods with any eye protection.
Was
Multi-Sport negligent? The
High Court said no.
When
deciding whether it was reasonable for Multi-Sport to provide eye
protection or a warning, the relationship between the parties and the
control that exists between them is critical.
The court identified these important factors:
|
|
-
Woods
was not a child and was not compelled to play the game
-
The activity involved risk that was plain to
everyone.
-
Woods was an adult who voluntarily used the
facility for recreational purposes.
-
Helmets had not been designed for the game, were not normally
worn and the rules did not provide for their use.
-
In the circumstances, the risk of serious eye injury was not
such as to require Multi-Sport to provide Woods with anything more
than the standard equipment normally used by adult players of the
sport.
-
The risk of a player being struck in the face by a cricket ball
was so obvious that reasonableness did not require Multi-Sport to warn
Woods about it.
The
Queensland Supreme Court followed the Woods decision in Lanyon v Noosa
District Junior Rugby League Football Club Inc & Ors [2002] QCA
163. Lanyon was an
accredited coach of an under-14 rugby league team.
The Noosa Junior Rugby League Football Club was a voluntary
organisation and the occupiers of the football ground where the team
trained.
Several
days before the incident, the ground was used for an expo at which
machinery was displayed and operated and vehicles were driven on the
playing surface. The
machinery caused a small depression that was concealed by grass.
Although
one of Lanyon’s duties was to ensure the playing area was safe for
training, he did not inspect the ground prior to the incident.
Club representatives had done so but did not discover the hole.
Training on the Tuesday after the weekend expo had taken place
without difficulty.
Continued
....
|
