DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
James v Surfers Jet [2015] QDC 233
PARTIES:
WALTER GREGORY JAMES
(plaintiff)v
SURFERS JET
(defendant)FILE NO/S:
D128/2013
DIVISION:
Civil
PROCEEDING:
Civil trial
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Southport
DELIVERED ON:
22 September 2015
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
23 February 2015
JUDGE:
McGill SC DCJ
ORDER:
Plaintiff’s claim dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:
NEGLIGENCE – Breach of duty - injury to passenger on jet boat ride – whether want of care by driver shown – whether inference of negligence open – whether obvious risk - damages assessed.
Civil Liability Act 2003 s 9, s 13.
Angel v Hawksbury City Council [2008] NSWCA 130 – cited.
Baresic v Slingshot Holdings Pty Ltd [2004] NSWCA 464 – considered.
Blunden v Solomon [2005] NSWCA 52 – cited.
C G Maloney Pty Ltd v Hutton-Potts [2006] NSWCA 136 – cited.
Dwan v Farquhar [1988] 1 Qd R 234 – considered.
Fallas v Mourlas (2006) 65 NSWLR 418 – cited.
Government Insurance Office of NSW v Fredrichberg (1968) 118 CLR 403 – considered.
Harwood v Priestley (1997) 6 Tas R 383 – considered.
Houston v Queensland Railways [1994] QCA 529 – cited.
Hume v Patterson [2013] NSWSC 1203 – considered.
Jolley v Sutton LBC [2000] 1 WLR 1082 – cited.
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298 – applied.
Lambos v Commonwealth of Australia (1967) 41 ALJR 180 – considered.
Medlin v SGIC (1995) 182 CLR 1 – cited.
Mummery v Irvings Pty Ltd (1956) 96 CLR 99 – applied.
Plumb v State of Queensland [2000] QCA 258 – cited.
Roads and Traffic Authority NSW v Dederer (2007) 234 CLR 330 – cited.
Rogers v Interpacific Resorts (Australia) Pty Ltd [2007] QSC 239 – considered.
Rootes v Shelton (1967) 116 CLR 383 – cited.
Rosenberg v Percival (2001) 205 CLR 434 - cited.
Schellenberg v Tunnel Holdings Pty Ltd (2000) 200 CLR 121 – cited.
Shotover Gorge Jet Boats Ltd v Jamieson [1987] 1 NZLR 437 – cited.
State of Queensland v Kelly [2014] QCA 27 – cited.COUNSEL:
M E Pope for the plaintiff
The defendant appeared in person
SOLICITORS:
DGM Lawyers for the plaintiff
The defendant was not represented
On 26 April 2010 the plaintiff was a passenger on a jet boat operated by the defendant, sitting in the end seat of the back row. At one point during the ride the plaintiff said that he was thrown into the air, and when he came down on the seat he felt pain in his back. It emerged that he had fractured a vertebra. The plaintiff alleges that this injury was caused by the negligence of the defendant in the way the boat was operated, but there was no evidence that any specific thing which should not be done by a jet boat operator was done on this occasion; the plaintiff’s case was essentially one of res ipsa loquitur. The defendant said that on this occasion he did what he does on every jet boat ride that he conducts,…
Continue reading James v Surfers Jet
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- James v Surfers Jet [2015] QDC 233
- Case
- [2015] QDC 233
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the driver’s actions constituted a breach of duty of care and whether such breach caused the plaintiff's injuries. The court also needed to consider whether the risk of injury was obvious and whether negligence could be inferred from the circumstances. The plaintiff argued that the driver’s negligence in operating the boat led to his injuries, while the defendant contended that the risk was obvious and that no breach occurred.
The court found that the risk of injury during jet boat rides was indeed obvious, and the driver did not breach any duty of care. The court determined that the plaintiff could not establish that the injuries were a result of the driver's negligence. Given that the risk was apparent and the plaintiff failed to prove negligence, the plaintiff's claim was dismissed. The court did not award any damages to the plaintiff.
The final orders of the court dismissed the plaintiff's claim, finding that no breach of duty of care occurred and that the risk was obvious. No damages were awarded to the plaintiff.
Orders
Orders of the court
Plaintiff’s claim dismissed.
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.