Haris v Bulldogs Rugby League Club

Samer Haris (the appellant) appealed to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales against a decision of the primary judge concerning injuries sustained at a football match. The appellant, a spectator at a game occupied by the respondent, Bulldogs Rugby League Club, was struck in the eye by a firework, resulting in the loss of sight in that eye. The appellant contended that the respondent, as the occupier responsible for security, had failed to take reasonable care to avoid a foreseeable risk of injury.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal included whether the respondent had taken reasonable care to avoid the foreseeable risk of injury, and if additional measures should have been taken. Specifically, the court considered the adequacy of the reasons provided by the trial judge regarding the security arrangements, the respondent's response to earlier flares and fireworks, and the application of section 5B of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) concerning the reasonableness of precautions. The appellant also argued that the damages awarded were inadequate.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. It reasoned that the trial judge had adequately considered the totality of the evidence regarding security measures, including bag searches, and was entitled to prefer certain evidence over others. The court found that the trial judge had correctly assessed the foreseeability of the risk of injury from fireworks, noting that while flares and fireworks had occurred previously, no injuries had been sustained. The court upheld the trial judge's conclusion that the precautions taken by the respondent were sufficient under the reasonable person test in section 5B of the Civil Liability Act, and that the respondent had not breached its duty of care. The appeal concerning the adequacy of damages was also dismissed.