Cruise Group Pty Ltd v Fullard

Cruise Group Pty Ltd (the appellant) appealed to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia against a judgment entered in favour of Mr. Fullard (the respondent) in a negligence claim. The respondent had tripped and fallen over a coaming at the doorway between the deck and an internal area of a cruise boat operated by the appellant. The coaming, along with the deck and riser, was painted a blue-grey colour, with the door and bulkhead being white, and metal strips present on the top of the coaming and at the foot of the riser.

The central legal issue before the Full Court was whether the appellant, as the operator of the cruise boat, had breached its duty of care to the respondent. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the appellant's duty of care required it to take further precautions, such as more distinguishing paintwork or the provision of a sign or announcement, to warn passengers of the presence of the coaming. This question was considered in light of evidence that there had been no known falls in approximately 10,000 trips annually over a twelve-year period.

By majority, the Full Court found that the risk of injury from the coaming was minimal. The court reasoned that a reasonable boat operator, in the circumstances, would not have been required to implement additional safety measures beyond those already in place. The existing visual cues, including the contrast between the blue-grey deck and riser and the white door and bulkhead, along with the metal strips, were considered sufficient to alert passengers to the change in level. The absence of any prior incidents over an extended period further supported the conclusion that the risk was not one that a reasonable operator would have felt compelled to mitigate with further precautions.

Consequently, the Full Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. In lieu thereof, verdict and judgment were entered for the defendant, Cruise Group Pty Ltd. The respondent was ordered to pay the costs of both the trial and the appeal, with a certificate under the Suitors Fund Act to be granted if the respondent otherwise qualified.