Fallas v Mourlas

Case [2006] NSWCA 32


Reported Decision: 65 NSWLR 418
(2006) Aust Torts Reports 81-835

Court of Appeal


CITATION: Fallas v Mourlas [2006] NSWCA 32
HEARING DATE(S): 16/02/06
 
JUDGMENT DATE: 

16 March 2006
JUDGMENT OF: Ipp JA at 1; Tobias JA at 85; Basten JA at 110
DECISION: Appeal dismissed with costs.
CATCHWORDS: NEGLIGENCE - injury sustained through accidental discharge of handgun - application of s 5L of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) - whether hunting kangaroos by spotlight is a "dangerous recreational activity" within the meaning of s 5K of the Civil Liability Act - discussion of meaning of the term "significant" - whether particular activities engaged in by the plaintiff should be segmented - relationship between a "significant risk" and an "obvious risk" for the purpose of s 5L - whether the risk that materialised was an "obvious risk" of the dangerous recreational activity as defined in s 5F of the Civil Liability Act. D
LEGISLATION CITED: Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), ss 5F, 5K, 5L
CASES CITED: Al-Kateb v Godwin (2004) 219 CLR 562
Beck v Mercantile Mutual Insurance Co Ltd [1961] SASR 311
Coco v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 427
Etna v Arif [1999] VR 353
Falvo v Australian Oztag Sports Association [2006] NSWCA 17
Letang v Ottawa Electric Ry Co [1926] AC 725
Malec v J C Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638
Malika Holdings v Streeton (2001) 204 CLR 290
Potter v Minahan (1908) 7 CLR 277
Re Bendeich (No 2) (1994) 53 FCR 422
R v De'Zilwa (2002) 5 VR 408
R v Leusenkamp (2003) 40 MVR 108
Rogers v Whitaker (1992) 175 CLR 479
Roggenkamp v Bennett (1950) 80 CLR 292
Rootes v Shelton (1967) 116 CLR 383
Scanlon v American Cigarette Company (Overseas) Pty Ltd (No 3) [1987] VR 289
Seltsam Pty Ltd v McGuiness (200) 49 NSWLR 262
Williamson v Ah On (1926) 39 CLR 95
Woods v Multi-Sport Holdings Pty Ltd (2002) 208 CLR 460
Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40
Wyong Shire Council v Vairy; Mulligan v Coffs Harbour City Council [2004] NSWCA 247
PARTIES: Alexander Con Fallas (Appellant)
Con Mourlas (Respondent)
FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40755/05
COUNSEL: C T Barry QC (Appellant)
C S Leahy SC (Respondent)
SOLICITORS: Vizzone Ruggero & Associates (Appellant)
Owen Hodge Lawyers (Respondent)
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 2638/04
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Quirk DCJ
LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 16/02/2006



                          CA 40755/05
                          DC 2638/04

                          IPP JA
                          TOBIAS JA
                          BASTEN JA

                          Thursday 16 March 2006

CON FALLAS v CON MOURLAS

Judgment

FACTS

Mr Alexander Con Fallas, the defendant below, accidentally shot his friend, Mr Con Mourlas, the plaintiff below, in the leg while hunting kangaroos. At the time of the accident, the four men were participating in an activity referred to as “spotlighting” or shooting kangaroos at night with the aid of a spotlight.

The men got into a vehicle and drove into the bush in search of kangaroo at around 10.30pm. Mr Fallas was driving the vehicle…

Continue reading Fallas v Mourlas

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Fallas v Mourlas [2006] NSWCA 32
Case
[2006] NSWCA 32
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *Fallas v Mourlas* concerned an appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The appellant, Mr Fallas, had suffered injury when a handgun accidentally discharged while he was hunting kangaroos by spotlight with the respondent, Mr Mourlas. Mr Fallas alleged that Mr Mourlas had been negligent in his handling of the firearm.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the activity of hunting kangaroos by spotlight constituted a "dangerous recreational activity" under the *Civil Liability Act 2002* (NSW), and if so, whether the risk of accidental discharge of a firearm was an "obvious risk" of that activity. The court was required to consider the meaning of "significant risk" and whether the specific actions of the parties should be segmented when assessing the nature of the activity and the risk.

The Court of Appeal, applying the provisions of the *Civil Liability Act 2002* (NSW), determined that hunting kangaroos by spotlight was indeed a dangerous recreational activity. The court reasoned that the risk of accidental discharge of a firearm during such an activity was an obvious risk, as it was a risk that would have been obvious to a reasonable person in the position of the plaintiff. The court rejected the argument that the activity should be segmented, finding that the overall activity of hunting by spotlight encompassed the risk that materialised. The court further clarified the relationship between a "significant risk" and an "obvious risk" under the Act, holding that an obvious risk does not need to be significant.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed with costs.

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.