McCracken v Melbourne Storm Rugby League Football Club Limited & 2 Ors [2007] NSWCA 353

McCracken v Melbourne Storm Rugby League Football Club Limited & 2 Ors [2007] NSWCA 353

The appellant did not suffer a relevant loss of earning capacity because the evidence established that he earned substantially more from property development after his injury than he would have from playing rugby league; no error in the trial judge’s assessment; appeal and cross-appeal dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: Jarrod McCracken; First Respondent: Melbourne Storm Rugby League Football Club Limited; Second Respondent: Stephen Kearney; Third Respondent: Marcus Bai
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 December 2007
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Sport Injuries, Vicarious Liability, Damages Assessment
Tort Law Negligence Sport Injuries Vicarious Liability Damages Assessment

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 5 Authorities cited 30 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 13
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jarrod McCracken

Appellant

Melbourne Storm Rugby League Football Club Limited

First Respondent

Stephen Kearney

Second Respondent

Marcus Bai

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents were negligent in tackling the appellant in the manner they did during a rugby league game
  2. 2 Whether appellant suffered past loss of earning capacity as a result of injuries
  3. 3 Whether trial judge erred in assessing damages, particularly relating to loss of earning capacity

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant did not suffer a relevant loss of earning capacity because the evidence established that he earned substantially more from property development after his injury than he would have from playing rugby league; no error in the trial judge’s assessment; appeal and cross-appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Cross-appeal dismissed with costs