Redding v Manly Life Saving Club Inc & Anor [2018] NSWDC 278

Redding v Manly Life Saving Club Inc & Anor [2018] NSWDC 278

The second defendant was negligent in failing to pause the game or refrain from striking the ball while the plaintiff was crouched nearby and not paying attention, as a reasonable person would have taken these minimal precautions. The risk was foreseeable and not insignificant, factual causation and scope of liability were satisfied, and there was no contributory negligence or inherent risk that would defeat liability.

Parties
Plaintiff: Newbie Louise Redding; First Defendant: Manly Life Saving Club Incorporated; Second Defendant: Scott White
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment and Orders
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Causation, Inherent Risk, Obvious Risk, Contributory Negligence, Assessment of Damages
Torts Damages Negligence Duty of Care Causation Inherent Risk Obvious Risk Contributory Negligence +1 more

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 6 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Newbie Louise Redding

Plaintiff

Manly Life Saving Club Incorporated

First Defendant

Scott White

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second defendant was negligent in failing to take precautions against the risk of harm to the plaintiff
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's injury was caused by the second defendant's negligence
  3. 3 Whether the risk was an inherent or obvious risk under the Civil Liability Act 2002

Ratio Decidendi

The second defendant was negligent in failing to pause the game or refrain from striking the ball while the plaintiff was crouched nearby and not paying attention, as a reasonable person would have taken these minimal precautions. The risk was foreseeable and not insignificant, factual causation and scope of liability were satisfied, and there was no contributory negligence or inherent risk that would defeat liability.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant.

Orders

  • Judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant for $692,806.30.
  • Order the second defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs.