Gray v Kosciusko Thredbo Pty Ltd t/as Kosciusko Thredbo Alpine Resort

In *Gray v Kosciusko Thredbo Pty Ltd t/as Kosciusko Thredbo Alpine Resort* [1998] NSWCA 98, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered an appeal from a decision of the District Court concerning a claim for damages for personal injury. The appellant, Mr. Gray, had suffered injuries while participating in a skiing event organised by the respondent, Kosciusko Thredbo Pty Ltd, which operated the Thredbo Alpine Resort. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the respondent owed a duty of care to the appellant in relation to the conduct of the skiing event and, if so, whether that duty had been breached.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the respondent had breached its duty of care to the appellant by failing to take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of the skiing course and the conduct of the event, and whether the appellant had voluntarily assumed the risk of injury by participating in the event. The court was required to assess the nature and extent of the duty of care owed by an operator of a ski resort to participants in organised events, and to consider the application of the defence of voluntary assumption of risk in the context of such activities.

The Court of Appeal, in its reasoning, affirmed that the respondent owed a duty of care to participants in its organised events to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm. The court found that the respondent had failed to discharge this duty by not adequately inspecting and maintaining the ski course, and by failing to implement appropriate safety measures for the event. Furthermore, the court held that the defence of voluntary assumption of risk was not applicable in this instance, as the appellant had not been fully aware of the specific risks that materialised and caused his injury. The court applied principles of negligence, focusing on the foreseeability of harm and the reasonableness of the precautions taken by the respondent.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, setting aside the decision of the District Court and remitting the matter for a new trial on the assessment of damages.