Burnouts not Dangerous recreational activity: crash risk not obvious: Plaintiff recovers $80k
The Civil Liability Act contains complex concepts of “obvious risk”, “inherent risk” and “dangerous recreational activity”. Nearly 8 years on, there remains a paucity of judicial guidance.
The District Court of Queensland recently had to consider some of these concepts *.
The plaintiff was in the company of two friends including the defendant whose father had given permission for the three of them to use his work vehicle for a short period. They drove the car to a narrow bitumen dead-end road at Simpson’s Falls, Bardon in Brisbane and proceeded to do “circuits” and “burnouts”.
Do you expect law firm overheads to increase in 2011?!
- Yes (91%)
- No (9%)
Loading ...He sued his driver friend and Suncorp for compensation. Suncorp raised a number of matters Under the Civil Liability Act 2003 in defence:-
- The risk was an “obvious risk” (section 13) and pursuant to section 14 the plaintiff was taken to have been aware of the risk, giving rise to a defence of Volenti;
- The activity was a “dangerous recreational activity” (section 19) and thus the defendant was not liable for the injury sustained “as a result of the materialisation of the obvious risk”; and
- The plaintiff by agreeing to ride in the vehicle and participate in the activity, contributed to the injury and was contributorily negligent.
His Honour found the three were engaged in conduct which would not be permitted on a public road. The type of driving being executed by the defendant during the journey home was however entirely different and “at a level of dangerousness far more serious than could have been contemplated”. The plaintiff had no reason to believe that the defendant would operate the car in that manner and was taken by surprise.
Thus the risk of the accident that had actually occurred was not “obvious” to the plaintiff. Further although it arose from a “recreational activity”, the driving earlier in the evening was not ”dangerous” even though it was “perhaps mindless and attended on occasions by some speed”.
Finally, His Honour was of the view that by participating in the activities, the plaintiff had not contributed to his own injuries.
* Wilson v. Lambkin [2010] QDC 254 (24 June 2010)
(4.00)
Loading ...
RSS All Topics
research CAREFULLY who you use in compensation…….be VERY careful who you use. MY best mate has a case against a CTP insurer, and his workers comp. 3 years running his solicitor has done nothing to help, fight, stand up for any of his rights, the solicitor has allowed the CTP insurer to NOT fulfill their obligation to assist but rather has left my mates finances derelict in deep serious trouble and hardships. The list his solicitor has NOT done is extensive. My mate has since become homeless as a direct result of his fiances becoming derelict due to inaction of the solicitor to pressure the CTP insurer to assist. The firm is LHD currently running heavy TV commercials. ANYONE using a solicitor do your homework, ask ppl online who might be ok to use and who is not. DO YOUR HOMEWORK and dont just engage a law firm cause you see their add on TV!!!!! shop around!!!!!!
I completely agree with the Judges’ decision in this matter. The aforementioned dangerous driving was not an agreeable idea; it isn’t relevant to the actual accident however. It would seem that at time the accident actually occurred the Plaintiff would likely not have anticipated the Defendant to be driving recklessly.