Echin v Southern Tablelands Gliding Club [2013] NSWSC 516

Echin v Southern Tablelands Gliding Club [2013] NSWSC 516

The Club was not negligent. The Plaintiff was aware of the powerlines, had been instructed about avoiding obstacles and clearing powerlines, was competent and experienced to fly solo and to perform hangar landings, and had available safer hangar-landing options. Runway 12/30 was not shown to be unsafe when pilots were aware of and trained to deal with the obstruction. The Plaintiff did not prove a causative breach of Level 2 supervision requirements. In any event, the accident resulted from the materialisation of the obvious risk of striking powerlines while landing a glider over them, which was an obvious risk of a dangerous recreational activity under s 5L of the Civil Liability Act 2002.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Torts Negligence Claim for Personal Injuries Arising From a Gliding Accident; Liability Only Because Quantum Was Agreed at $750,000 / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Judgment for the Defendant.
Legal Topics
['dangerous Recreational Activities' 'obvious Risk' 'gliding Accident' 'duty and Breach of Care' 'causation' 'volunteers' 'vicarious Liability' 'gliding Club Supervision and Training']
['torts' 'negligence' 'civil Liability' 'recreational Activities'] ['dangerous Recreational Activities' 'obvious Risk' 'gliding Accident' 'duty and Breach of Care' 'causation' 'volunteers' 'vicarious Liability' 'gliding Club Supervision and Training']

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

Torts Negligence Claim for Personal Injuries Arising From a Gliding Accident; Liability Only Because Quantum Was Agreed at $750,000 / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the First Defendant was negligent by providing or designating runway 12/30 where high tension electricity lines intersected the approach from the east.' 'Whether the First Defendant failed to instruct the Plaintiff adequately about the danger of using runway 30 and the risk of collision with high tension electricity lines, including in late afternoon conditions.' 'Whether the instruction to perform a hangar landing was negligent because the Plaintiff was insufficiently experienced.' 'Whether the Plaintiff was sufficiently trained and experienced to fly as sole pilot in command on 16 July 2008.' 'Whether the day’s operations and the Plaintiff’s flying were required to be directly supervised by a Level 2 instructor and whether any breach caused the harm.' 'Whether ss 61 and 3C of the Civil Liability Act 2002 would protect the Club from vicarious liability for volunteers.' 'Whether the Plaintiff’s harm resulted from the materialisation of an obvious risk of a dangerous recreational activity under s 5L of the Civil Liability Act 2002.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Club was not negligent. The Plaintiff was aware of the powerlines, had been instructed about avoiding obstacles and clearing powerlines, was competent and experienced to fly solo and to perform hangar landings, and had available safer hangar-landing options. Runway 12/30 was not shown to be unsafe when pilots were aware of and trained to deal with the obstruction. The Plaintiff did not prove a causative breach of Level 2 supervision requirements. In any event, the accident resulted from the materialisation of the obvious risk of striking powerlines while landing a glider over them, which was an obvious risk of a dangerous recreational activity under s 5L of the Civil Liability Act 2002.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Defendant.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the Defendant.' "The Plaintiff to pay the Defendant's costs of the proceedings."]