Rootes v Shelton [1967] HCA 39
The respondent owed the appellant a duty of care during the water skiing activity. The risks of failing to signal an observable obstruction or steering dangerously close to an obstruction are not inherent in the sport. The appellant did not voluntarily assume these risks, and failure by the respondent to warn or steer clear constituted a breach of duty. The trial judge’s directions to the jury were sufficient, and the jury’s verdict for the appellant should be restored.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Final Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- ['negligence' 'duty of Care' 'sports Law' 'voluntary Assumption of Risk']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether a participant in a sport assumes the risk of negligence by another participant.' 'Whether the driver of the towing boat owed a duty of care to the appellant water skier.' 'Whether failure to warn or steering too close to an obstruction constitutes a breach of duty of care.']
Ratio Decidendi
The respondent owed the appellant a duty of care during the water skiing activity. The risks of failing to signal an observable obstruction or steering dangerously close to an obstruction are not inherent in the sport. The appellant did not voluntarily assume these risks, and failure by the respondent to warn or steer clear constituted a breach of duty. The trial judge’s directions to the jury were sufficient, and the jury’s verdict for the appellant should be restored.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed
Orders
- ['Order of the Court of Appeal discharged' 'Appeal to Court of Appeal dismissed with costs']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment