Baresic v Slingshot Holdings Pty Limited

In *Baresic v Slingshot Holdings Pty Limited*, the appellant, Ms. Baresic, appealed a decision of the trial judge concerning injuries sustained while riding the "Slingshot" amusement machine operated by the respondent. The appellant's case was that the amusement machine was not inherently unsafe, but that the respondent had failed to provide adequate warnings and supervision to ensure riders complied with any necessary precautions. The appellant argued that the trial judge erred by not determining the case on this basis and by misapplying the test of foreseeability.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the respondent owed a duty of care to the appellant, and if so, whether that duty had been breached. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the risk of injury was foreseeable, and if so, whether the respondent's actions or omissions in operating the Slingshot machine, including the adequacy of warnings and the level of supervision provided, constituted a breach of that duty. The appellant's argument focused on the need for both clear warnings and strict supervision of riders.

The court found that the appellant's case was not made out on the basis advanced, which required both clear warnings and strict supervision. The Slingshot machine itself was described as a second-generation amusement ride with a capsule that swings between two towers, propelled by springs and cables, and undergoing multiple upward and downward oscillations. A sign near the entrance provided warnings that rides were at the rider's own risk and were not recommended for individuals with back, neck, or heart problems. The appellant acknowledged that these warnings clearly indicated the ride's unsuitability for someone with a neck weakness, but stated she would have ridden regardless and did not recall seeing the sign. The court's reasoning focused on the adequacy of the warnings and the inherent safety of the machine's design and operation, rather than solely on the need for strict supervision as presented by the appellant.