Wardle v Kick & Ors [2006] NSWSC 327

Wardle v Kick & Ors [2006] NSWSC 327

The first defendant was negligent in breaching Civil Aviation Order 95.8 by flying within 100 feet and 25 metres of pedestrians, exposing them to harm; the third defendant failed its duty as site manager by not providing a safe landing area or exclusion zone. The fourth defendant was not liable as site management was properly delegated. The council was not liable as responsibility for hang glider safety belonged to the club and federation; reasonable steps were not required of council in the circumstances. Damages were assessed based on loss directly attributable to the injuries from the original accident and its consequences, excluding unrelated deterioration.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 April 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff against the first and third defendants. Claims against second and fourth defendants dismissed. Damages assessed.
Legal Topics
['personal Injury' 'liability of Clubs and Associations' 'liability of Councils' 'economic Loss' 'future Economic Loss' 'non Economic Loss' 'contributory Negligence' 'costs Orders']
['negligence' 'damages' 'aviation Law'] ['personal Injury' 'liability of Clubs and Associations' 'liability of Councils' 'economic Loss' 'future Economic Loss' 'non Economic Loss' 'contributory Negligence' 'costs Orders']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the first defendant was negligent in flying a hang glider resulting in injury to the plaintiff' 'Whether the third defendant (club) was liable for failing to ensure safety at the site' 'Whether the fourth defendant (federation) was liable' 'Whether the council was liable for failing to minimise risk or alter pathways/signage' 'Extent of damages for economic, non-economic, and subsequent injuries']

Ratio Decidendi

The first defendant was negligent in breaching Civil Aviation Order 95.8 by flying within 100 feet and 25 metres of pedestrians, exposing them to harm; the third defendant failed its duty as site manager by not providing a safe landing area or exclusion zone. The fourth defendant was not liable as site management was properly delegated. The council was not liable as responsibility for hang glider safety belonged to the club and federation; reasonable steps were not required of council in the circumstances. Damages were assessed based on loss directly attributable to the injuries from the original accident and its consequences, excluding unrelated deterioration.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff against the first and third defendants. Claims against second and fourth defendants dismissed. Damages assessed.

Orders

  • ['The first and third defendants are to pay the plaintiff the sum of $344,802 in damages.' "Plaintiff to pay the second and fourth defendant's costs." 'First and third defendants to pay costs of cross-claims with the second defendant.' 'No order for indemnity costs, costs to be assessed on ordinary basis.' 'No...