Campbell v Hay

Case [2014] NSWCA 129


Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

  • Summary available
Medium Neutral Citation: Campbell v Hay [2014] NSWCA 129
Hearing dates:24 February 2014
Decision date: 16 April 2014
Before: Meagher JA at [1];
Barrett JA at [7];
Ward JA at [10]
Decision:

1. Appeal dismissed with costs

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

Catchwords: TORTS - negligence - duty of care - whether primary judge erred in finding that flying instructor breached duty of care to trainee pilot by not causing aircraft to be diverted immediately upon the occurrence of a second set of faint vibrations, after a first set of vibrations had been corrected five minutes earlier, or by relying on an innate sense of luck - whether appellant had established that any breach of the duty of care was a cause of the harm suffered
TORTS - negligence - defences - whether flying in a light aircraft under supervision of experienced flying instructor was a dangerous recreational activity
TORTS - negligence - defences - whether harm that occurred was the materialisation of an obvious risk of a dangerous recreational activity
Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002
Cases Cited: Echin v Southern Tablelands Gliding Club [2013] NSWSC 516
Fallas v Mourlas [2006] NSWCA 32; (2006) 65 NSWLR 418
Falvo v Australian Oztag Sports Association [2006] NSWCA 17
Jaber v Rockdale City Council [2008] NSWCA 98
Laoulach v Ibrahim [2011] NSWCA 402
Rogers v Whitaker [1992] HCA 58; (1992) 175 CLR 479
Streller v Albury City Council [2013] NSWCA 348
Vairy v Wyong Shire Council [2005] HCA 62; (2005) 223 CLR 422
Vremen and Morris v Albury City Council (2011) NSWSC 39
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Noel Campbell (Appellant)
Rodney Victor Hay (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
R S Sheldon SC with J H Reimer (Appellant)
D J Fagan SC with D A Lloyd (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Brydens Law Office (Appellant)
GSG Legal (Respondent)
File Number(s):CA 2013/78034
Publication restriction:Nil
 Decision under appeal 
Jurisdiction:
9101
Citation:
[2013] NSWDC 11
Date of Decision:
2013-02-19 00:00:00
Before:
Marks ADCJ
File Number(s):
DC 2010/120631

Judgment

  1. MEAGHER JA: The appellant sued the respondent for injuries sustained when a single engine light recreational aircraft, in which he was receiving flying lessons from the respondent, had to make a forced landing in a paddock in the Hartley Valley near Katoomba because of engine failure.

  1. The appellant's principal case was that there were two occasions during the flight when engine vibrations were encountered and that the respondent was negligent in not responding to those occasions by ensuring that the aircraft was only flown in areas close to suitable landing strips which could be…

Continue reading Campbell v Hay

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Campbell v Hay [2014] NSWCA 129
Case
[2014] NSWCA 129
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in *Campbell v Hay* concerned a negligence claim brought by a trainee pilot against their flying instructor. The trainee pilot alleged that the instructor breached their duty of care during a flight, leading to the harm suffered. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the primary judge had erred in finding that the flying instructor breached their duty of care. Specifically, the court considered whether the instructor was negligent by failing to immediately divert the aircraft upon the occurrence of a second set of faint vibrations, after an initial set had been corrected approximately five minutes earlier, or by relying on luck. Furthermore, the court had to determine if the trainee pilot had established that any such breach of duty was a causative factor of the harm sustained. The court also considered whether flying in a light aircraft under the supervision of an experienced instructor constituted a dangerous recreational activity, and if the harm suffered was the materialisation of an obvious risk of such an activity.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the primary judge's findings. The court reasoned that the instructor's actions, or inactions, in response to the vibrations constituted a breach of the duty of care owed to the trainee pilot. The court found that the instructor's reliance on luck rather than taking immediate precautionary measures was not reasonable in the circumstances. The court also concluded that the harm suffered was a direct consequence of this breach. The defence of dangerous recreational activity was not made out, as the specific circumstances of the flight and the instructor's conduct did not align with the elements required for that defence.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal dismissed with costs

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.