Green v Perry

The appeal concerned Doris Lena Perry, the respondent, who sued the appellants, trustees and council members of the Royal National Agricultural and Industrial Association of Queensland, for damages arising from personal injuries sustained when a bullock escaped from a camp drafting arena at the Exhibition Grounds in Brisbane. The bullock scaled a fence of approximately three feet six inches, surmounted by a rail, and injured Ms. Perry, a spectator. The core of Ms. Perry's claim was that the appellants negligently failed to ensure the premises were safe for spectators, given the nature of the camp drafting event.

The legal issues before the court were whether the appellants had breached their duty of care to the respondent by failing to take reasonable precautions to make the arena safe for spectators, and if so, whether the existing fence height constituted a failure to provide reasonably adequate protection. Specifically, the court had to determine if the risk of a bullock escaping was sufficiently foreseeable to impose a duty to provide a higher fence, and if the jury's finding that a higher fence was necessary was supported by the evidence. The appellants argued that the escape of a bullock was so unlikely that no additional precautions were required, and that the respondent assumed any inherent risk.

The court affirmed the decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland, holding that the trial judge had correctly directed the jury on the principles of negligence. The court reasoned that while the escape of a bullock was unusual, the evidence established a real risk that a competitor might lose control of a fast-moving animal, leading it to attempt to escape. This foreseeability imposed a duty on the appellants to provide a reasonably adequate fence. The court found that it was open to the jury to conclude, based on expert evidence and past incidents at the grounds, that the existing fence was not reasonably adequate to protect spectators from such a risk, particularly given the speed and potential for bullocks to scramble over a fence of that height. The jury's finding that a higher fence was required was therefore upheld.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.