Harris v Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Archdiocese of Sydney & Anor [2011] NSWDC 172

Harris v Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Archdiocese of Sydney & Anor [2011] NSWDC 172

The second defendant was negligent because it conducted a beginners' skiing lesson in an area containing a ditch, preceded by a mound, which was beyond the capacity of a beginner to negotiate and which a proper inspection would have identified or guarded against. That negligence caused the plaintiff's spinal injury because, but for the presence of the ditch and the failure to identify or take precautions against it, the injury would not have occurred. Skiing was a dangerous recreational activity, but the relevant risk was not an obvious risk: a reasonable beginner on a beginners' slope would not expect to encounter a ditch of that kind. The first defendant was liable to the plaintiff...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Personal Injury Negligence Proceedings With Cross Claim / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff against the first and second defendants in the sum of $309,768.94; judgment for the first defendant on its cross-claim for full indemnity from the second defendant.
Legal Topics
['non Delegable Duty of School' 'skiing Accident' 'dangerous Recreational Activity' 'obvious Risk' 'breach of Duty' 'causation' 'damages' 'indemnity on Cross Claim']
['tort Law' 'personal Injury' 'negligence' 'civil Liability'] ['non Delegable Duty of School' 'skiing Accident' 'dangerous Recreational Activity' 'obvious Risk' 'breach of Duty' 'causation' 'damages' 'indemnity on Cross Claim']

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 Personal Injury Negligence Proceedings With Cross Claim / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the second defendant breached its duty of care by conducting a beginners' skiing lesson in an area containing a ditch or mound beyond the capacity of a beginner to negotiate." "Whether any negligence of the second defendant was attributable to the first defendant through the school's non-delegable duty to its pupil." "Whether the plaintiff's harm resulted from the materialisation of an obvious risk of a dangerous recreational activity under Section 5L of the Civil Liability Act 2002." "Whether the second defendant caused the plaintiff's injury within Section 5D of the Civil Liability Act 2002." 'Whether the first defendant was entitled to indemnity or contribution from the second defendant on the cross-claim.' 'What damages should be awarded for non-economic loss, economic loss, superannuation loss, out of pocket expenses and future medical expenses.']

Ratio Decidendi

The second defendant was negligent because it conducted a beginners' skiing lesson in an area containing a ditch, preceded by a mound, which was beyond the capacity of a beginner to negotiate and which a proper inspection would have identified or guarded against. That negligence caused the plaintiff's spinal injury because, but for the presence of the ditch and the failure to identify or take precautions against it, the injury would not have occurred. Skiing was a dangerous recreational activity, but the relevant risk was not an obvious risk: a reasonable beginner on a beginners' slope would not expect to encounter a ditch of that kind. The first defendant was liable to the plaintiff...

Court Disposition

Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff against the first and second defendants in the sum of $309,768.94; judgment for the first defendant on its cross-claim for full indemnity from the second defendant.

Orders

  • ['Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff against the first and second defendants in the sum of $309,768.94.' 'On the cross-claim, the second defendant is to indemnify the first defendant in respect of the whole of its liability (including costs) to the plaintiff.' "The second defendant is to pay the first...