The Tort Of Negligence Case

1242 Words5 Pages
The plaintiff, Christopher Moor was injured on the premises of the defendant, Liverpool Catholic Club Ltd, on January 14 2009. While descending a set of stairs to an ice skating rink on the premises, Moor slipped and fell, resulting in a fracture to his right ankle. After further examination, Moor was found to have sustained a fracture of the right fibula, dorsal displacement of distal fragment, ligament disruption and widening of the ankle joint. He was wearing ice skating blades at the time of the accident. The civil negligence case was trialled in the District Court of New South Wales before Levy SC DCJ on 28/29 May 2013 and the decision was made 25 June 2013. The plaintiff successfully established his entitlement to judgement and…show more content…
The defendant pleaded a defence of inherent risk, pursuant to s 5I and s 5K of the CL Act. There is no liability in negligence if the harm complained of is as a result of the materialisation of an inherent risk: s 5I(1) of the CL Act. An inherent risk is defined as an occurrence that cannot be avoided with the exercise of reasonable care and skill: s 5I(2) of the CL Act. The exclusionary effect of s 5I does not operate where there is a duty to warn of the existence of a risk: s 5I(3) of the CL Act. The questions for decision in connection with that defense is whether the activity of walking down stairs whilst wearing ice skates at an ice rink, involves an obvious risk within the meaning of s 5F(1) of the CL Act, and whether such argued obvious risk in fact materialized and caused injury to the plaintiff. Further decision in the proceedings were governed by the answers to the following: (1) Evaluation of the utility of expert evidence on liability issues; (2) Whether the plaintiff 's injury occurred as a materialisation of an obvious risk within the meaning of s 5F, s 5G and s 5L of the CL Act; (3) Whether the plaintiff 's injury occurred as a materialisation of an inherent risk within the meaning of s 5I of the CL Act; (4) Whether the plaintiff 's injury was caused by the negligence of the defendant, having regard to the provisions of s 5M, s 5B and s 5D of the CL Act; (5) Whether there was contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff within the
Open Document