Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
- Summary available
Medium Neutral Citation: Sharp v Parramatta City Council [2015] NSWCA 260 Hearing dates: 17 March 2015 Decision date: 02 September 2015 Before: Meagher JA at [1];
Ward JA at [46];
Gleeson JA at [47]Decision: 1. Appeal dismissed.
2. Appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.Catchwords: TORTS – negligence – where appellant injured jumping off 10 metre diving platform – whether occupier of pool owed duty of care to supervise and instruct individuals using platform – whether primary judge erred in finding as to instruction given – whether warning of risk of injury in using platform was given in accordance with s 5M of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) – whether that risk warning contradicted by instructions given by lifeguard – whether appellant’s injuries were suffered as a result of materialisation of an obvious risk of dangerous recreational activity within s 5L of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), ss 5B, 5D, 5F, 5H, 5I, 5K, 5L, 5M, 5R
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 51.53(1)Cases Cited: Action Paintball Games Pty Ltd (in liquidation) v Barker [2013] NSWCA 128
Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna [1987] HCA 7; 162 CLR 479
Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; 214 CLR 118
Lorrimar v Serco Sodexo Defence Services Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCA 371
Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW v Dederer [2007] HCA 42; 234 CLR 330
Streller v Albury City Council [2013] NSWCA 348
Tory v Megna [2007] NSWCA 13
Vairy v Wyong Shire Council [2005] HCA 62; 223 CLR 422Category: Principal judgment Parties: Erin Sharp (Appellant)
Parramatta City Council (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
R Sheldon SC with E Welsh (Appellant)
J E Sexton SC (Respondent)
Brydens Law Office (Appellant)
McCulloch & Buggy Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): CA2014/142863 Publication restriction: Nil Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- District Court of New South Wales
- Date of Decision:
- 17 April 2014
- Before:
- Curtis DCJ
- File Number(s):
- DC2011/357852
HEADNOTE
[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]
The appellant suffered injuries in January 2009 when she landed awkwardly after jumping from the 10 metre diving platform at Parramatta War Memorial Swimming Centre. In the District Court, the appellant claimed that Parramatta City Council was negligent in breaching its duty, as the occupier of the pool, to take reasonable care to avoid foreseeable risks of injury to those persons using the pool and diving tower.
The primary judge dismissed the appellant’s claim on the basis that there was a warning sign at the base of the stairs to the diving tower, which provided a defence to the appellant’s claim under s 5M of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW). The primary judge also found that the lifeguard at the top of the tower had instructed the appellant to “fall vertically, feet first into the pool below” and that this would have satisfied a…
Continue reading Sharp v Parramatta City Council
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Sharp v Parramatta City Council [2015] NSWCA 260
- Case
- [2015] NSWCA 260
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the occupier of the pool owed a duty of care to supervise and instruct individuals using the diving platform, whether the primary judge erred in their findings regarding the instructions given, and whether an adequate warning of the risk of injury was provided in accordance with section 5M of the *Civil Liability Act 2002* (NSW). Further, the Court considered whether any such warning was contradicted by the instructions given by a lifeguard, and whether the appellant's injuries arose from the materialisation of an obvious risk of a dangerous recreational activity, as contemplated by section 5L of the *Civil Liability Act 2002* (NSW).
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the primary judge's findings. The reasoning involved an assessment of the adequacy of the warning provided and the nature of the instructions given by the lifeguard. The Court found that the warning was sufficient for the purposes of section 5M and that the risk of injury from jumping off the platform constituted an obvious risk of a dangerous recreational activity under section 5L. Consequently, the Council was not liable for the appellant's injuries. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Appeal dismissed.
2. Appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.
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.