Archer v Garcia - [2022] VSC 57

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

PERSONAL INJURIES LIST

S ECI 2018 01404

JAYDEN ARCHER	Plaintiff
v
TROY GARCIA	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Incerti J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	27-30 September, 1, 4-7, 21 October, 15-16 December 2021
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	17 February 2022
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Archer v Garcia
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VSC 57

---

NEGLIGENCE – Monster truck and freestyle motocross event in country Victoria – Freestyle motocross accident – Down ramp in incorrect position – Defendant event manager and promotor – Performers independent contractors – Adequacy of ramp movement system – Whether defendant required to supervise ramp movement by performers – Whether plaintiff was warned of ramp misplacement by clown – Voluntary assumption of risk – Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 16 – Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) ss 14B, 53, 55.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Ms S C Bailey	Arnold Thomas & Becker
For the Defendant	Mr L Howe	Briefed directly pursuant to Victorian Bar Pro Bono Scheme

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction........................................................................................................................................ 1

Summary of conclusions.................................................................................................................. 2

The trial and witnesses..................................................................................................................... 7

The evidence.................................................................................................................................. 8
The plaintiff.......................................................................................................................... 8
The defendant.................................................................................................................... 10
The event and the accident............................................................................................... 11

Disputed events........................................................................................................................... 16
New evidence.............................................................................................................................. 17
The rule in Jones v Dunkel........................................................................................................... 19
Consideration of third disputed event..................................................................................... 23
Conclusions on credit................................................................................................................. 36
Consideration of second disputed event................................................................................. 39
Consideration of first disputed event...................................................................................... 41
Conclusions on evidence............................................................................................................ 52

Submissions...................................................................................................................................... 52

Plaintiff’s submissions................................................................................................................ 52
Defendant’s submissions........................................................................................................... 55

Analysis.............................................................................................................................................. 58

Negligence.................................................................................................................................... 58
Breach of contract........................................................................................................................ 71
Occupier’s liability...................................................................................................................... 71
Voluntary assumption of risk.................................................................................................... 73

Conclusion......................................................................................................................................... 74

HER HONOUR:

Introduction

On 28 November 2015, the plaintiff, Jayden Archer, was injured while performing freestyle motocross (‘FMX’) at a monster truck and FMX ‘spectacular’ event at the Korumburra Showgrounds in Korumburra, Victoria (‘the event’). The plaintiff’s injuries occurred as the result of ‘overshooting’ the down ramp while completing an FMX jump and landing directly on the ground causing him to be thrown off his motorbike. When the plaintiff commenced the jump that resulted in his injuries, he believed that the down ramp was positioned at a distance of 75 feet from the up ramp. The down ramp was, in fact, positioned at a shorter distance from the up ramp.

The defendant, Troy Garcia, was the promoter and manager of the event, and performed as a monster truck driver on the night. He was also recorded in certain documentation as the ‘operations manager’, ‘site manager’, ‘FMX supervisor’ and ‘FMX team manager’.

In summary, the plaintiff pleads that:

(a) the defendant, as the promoter, manager and/or FMX supervisor and team manager at the event, breached his duty of care to the plaintiff;

(b) the defendant, as the occupier of the Korumburra Showgrounds, breached his duty of care to the plaintiff under Part IIA of the Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic) (‘the Act’); and

(c) the defendant, as the promoter and manager of the event, breached his verbal…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Archer v Garcia

Details

AGLC: Archer v Garcia [2022] VSC 57
Case: [2022] VSC 57
Decision Date: 17 February 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Archer v Garcia involved the plaintiff, a professional freestyle motocross rider, who suffered severe injuries during an event in country Victoria organised by the defendant, Garcia, the event manager and promoter. The plaintiff argued that the defendant was negligent in allowing him to perform a trick on a ramp that was incorrectly positioned, causing him to crash. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant failed to supervise the ramp movement and did not warn him of the misplacement. The defendant argued that the plaintiff, as an independent contractor, was responsible for his own safety and voluntarily assumed the risks inherent in the sport. The case was heard in the County Court of Victoria, with the plaintiff seeking compensation for his injuries under the law of negligence.

The court had to determine whether the defendant was required to supervise the ramp movement by the performers and whether the plaintiff was adequately warned of the ramp misplacement by a clown present at the event. Additionally, the court had to consider the doctrine of voluntary assumption of risk and whether it applied to the plaintiff's injuries. The court also had to consider relevant provisions of the Wrongs Act 1958 (Vic), including sections 14B, 53, and 55, which deal with the duty of care and the defence of voluntary assumption of risk.

The court found that the defendant did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff beyond providing a safe environment for the event. The court held that the plaintiff, as an independent contractor, was responsible for ensuring that he performed the trick safely and was aware of the risks involved. The court also found that the plaintiff had not been adequately warned of the ramp misplacement by the clown, but this did not constitute a breach of duty of care. The court held that the plaintiff had voluntarily assumed the risks inherent in the sport, and therefore, the defendant was not liable for the plaintiff's injuries.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim for damages, holding that the defendant had not breached any duty of care owed to the plaintiff. The court found that the plaintiff's injuries were a result of his own actions and the inherent risks of the sport, and therefore, the doctrine of voluntary assumption of risk applied. The court also found that the plaintiff had failed to establish that the defendant's actions or omissions had caused his injuries. The plaintiff's claim was dismissed, and no orders were made in favour of the plaintiff.

Orders