Perisher Blue Pty Limited v Harris [2013] NSWCA 38

Perisher Blue Pty Limited v Harris [2013] NSWCA 38

The appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed because the primary judge's findings on breach, causation, and the characterisation of risk were open on the evidence and consistent with the statutory obligations under the Civil Liability Act 2002. The risk presented by the ditch was not an obvious risk of a dangerous recreational activity as defined by the Act, and the damages and costs awards were justified.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal Decision
Outcome
Appeal and cross appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['personal Injury' 'skiing Accident' 'breach of Duty of Care' 'causation' 'obvious Risk' 'future Economic Loss' 'costs']
['torts' 'negligence'] ['personal Injury' 'skiing Accident' 'breach of Duty of Care' 'causation' 'obvious Risk' 'future Economic Loss' 'costs']

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

Appeal / Appeal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether operator of ski resort was negligent in failing to take precautions to prevent injury to a beginner skier encountering a ditch on the slope' "Whether the breach caused the plaintiff's injury within the meaning of ss 5D and 5E of the Civil Liability Act 2002" "Whether the risk was an 'obvious risk' under s 5L of the Civil Liability Act 2002 such that liability was excluded" 'Whether damages for future economic loss and costs awarded by the primary judge were justified']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed because the primary judge's findings on breach, causation, and the characterisation of risk were open on the evidence and consistent with the statutory obligations under the Civil Liability Act 2002. The risk presented by the ditch was not an obvious risk of a dangerous recreational activity as defined by the Act, and the damages and costs awards were justified.

Court Disposition

Appeal and cross appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The appeal and the cross appeal dismissed with costs.']