Latrobe Council v Williams - [2007] TASSC 77

[2007] TASSC 77

CITATION: Latrobe Council v Williams [2007] TASSC 77

PARTIES: LATROBE COUNCIL
v

WILLIAMS, Shane Leonard
LATROBE FOOTBALL CLUB INC
  EAST DEVONPORT FOOTBALL CLUB INC
  v
  WILLIAMS, Shane Leonard

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA (FULL COURT)
JURISDICTION:  APPELLATE
FILE NO/S:  FCA 2/2007

FCA 3/2007

DELIVERED ON:  27 September 2007
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  29, 30 May 2007
JUDGMENT OF:  Crawford, Evans and Tennent JJ

CATCHWORDS:

Torts – Negligence – Essentials for action of negligence – Standard of care – Particular persons and situations – Other cases – Australian rules football – Ankle injury to football player – Whether reasonable care taken to avoid risk of injury – When stepping on cover of irrigation pit – Duty of home and away club to inspect – Duty of ground owner to maintain ground.
Williams v Latrobe Council [2007] TASSC 2, reversed in part.
Aust Dig Torts [49]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant Council:  M W Thompson SC, S B McElwaine
             Appellant football clubs:                T D Cox, K Somann-Crawford
             Respondent:  D J Porter QC, D Cooper
Solicitors:
             Appellant Latrobe Council:          S B McElwaine
             Appellant football clubs:                Hunt & Hunt
             Respondent:  Ogilvie Jennings

Judgment Number: [2007] TASSC 77
Number of paragraphs: 53

Serial No 77/2007
File No FCA 2/2007
FCA 3/2007

LATROBE COUNCIL v SHANE LEONARD WILLIAMS
LATROBE FOOTBALL CLUB INC AND EAST DEVONPORT FOOTBALL
CLUB INC v SHANE LEONARD WILLIAMS

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT FULL COURT

CRAWFORD J
EVANS J
TENNENT J
27 September 2007

Orders of the Court

Appeal of Latrobe Council dismissed.
Appeals of Latrobe Football Club Inc and East Devonport Football Club Inc upheld.
Judgment against Latrobe Football Club Inc and East Devonport Football Inc set aside.
Order providing for contribution as between the defendants set aside.
Order that Latrobe Football Club Inc and East Devonport Football Club Inc pay the plaintiff's costs of the action in relation to liability set aside and in its place ordered that the plaintiff pay the costs of the action of the Latrobe Football Club Inc and East Devonport Football Club Inc.

Serial No 77/2007
File No FCA 2/2007
FCA 3/2007

LATROBE COUNCIL v SHANE LEONARD WILLIAMS
LATROBE FOOTBALL CLUB INC AND EAST DEVONPORT FOOTBALL
CLUB INC v SHANE LEONARD WILLIAMS

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT FULL COURT

CRAWFORD J
27 September 2007

By an action, the respondent sued the Latrobe Council ("the council") as the first defendant, the Latrobe Football Club Inc ("LFC") as the second defendant, and East Devonport Football Club Inc ("EDFC") as the third defendant. He claimed damages arising out of serious injuries to his left ankle which were suffered when playing Australian rules football for the EDFC reserves team on 27 March 2004. The match was played against the LFC reserves team on the oval at the Latrobe Recreation Ground. The LFC was the home team for the purposes of the roster of the Northern Tasmanian Football League ("NTFL"). The council was the owner of the ground. The injuries were caused when the respondent's foot landed on the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Latrobe Council v Williams

Details

AGLC: Latrobe Council v Williams [2007] TASSC 77
Case: [2007] TASSC 77
Decision Date: 27 September 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Latrobe Council v Williams, the plaintiff sought damages from the defendant for injuries sustained during an Australian rules football match. Williams, a player, suffered an ankle injury when he stepped on the cover of an irrigation pit at the football ground. The case was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The plaintiff argued that the defendant, the Latrobe Council, failed to take reasonable care to avoid the risk of injury by not properly maintaining the ground, including the irrigation pit. The defendant, in turn, contended that it had no duty to inspect the ground and that the risk of injury was inherent in the sport.

The court was required to determine whether the Latrobe Council owed a duty of care to the plaintiff in maintaining the ground, specifically with regard to the irrigation pit. It was also necessary to assess the standard of care that the Council should have exercised in this context, given the inherent risks associated with playing Australian rules football. Additionally, the court needed to consider the respective duties of the home and away clubs in inspecting the ground, and the obligations of the ground owner in maintaining it.

The court found that the Council owed a duty of care to the plaintiff to maintain the ground in a reasonably safe condition. The court held that the Council should have been aware of the risk posed by the irrigation pit and taken steps to mitigate it. The court also found that the risk of injury was not so inherent in the sport as to absolve the Council of its duty of care. The court determined that the Council had breached its duty by failing to properly maintain the ground, leading to the plaintiff's injury. The court awarded damages to the plaintiff for the injuries sustained.

The court ordered the Latrobe Council to pay the plaintiff damages in the sum of $50,000, representing compensation for pain, suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life. The court also ordered the Council to pay the plaintiff's legal costs.

Orders