Doubleday v Kelly

Doubleday v Kelly concerned an appeal from a judgment in favour of the plaintiff, a seven-year-old child, who suffered personal injury while playing on a trampoline at the defendant's property. The central dispute revolved around the defendant's alleged negligence as an occupier in failing to adequately supervise the child and prevent access to the trampoline when unsupervised. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal included whether the defendant breached their duty of care to the child by allowing unsupervised access to the trampoline, the foreseeability of the risk of injury to a child of that age in such circumstances, and whether the child was capable of contributory negligence. The court was also required to consider the application of the *Civil Liability Act 2002* (NSW) concerning contributory negligence, assumption of risk, and obvious risk, as well as the assessment of damages for non-economic loss.

The court upheld the finding of liability against the defendant, reasoning that it was foreseeable that a seven-year-old child, if unsupervised, might suffer injury on a trampoline. The defendant's failure to prevent the child from accessing the trampoline without adult supervision was considered a breach of the duty of care owed. The court found that a child of seven was not capable of contributory negligence in this context. However, the appeal was allowed on the issue of damages, with the court substituting a lower figure for non-economic loss, assessing the injury at 20% of the most extreme case. The final orders stipulated that the damages be varied to $64,000, with each party to bear their own costs of the appeal.