Shellharbour City Council v Rigby

Shellharbour City Council (the appellant) appealed from a judgment of the District Court of New South Wales, which found it liable for injuries sustained by Mr Rigby (the first respondent) while using a BMX track. Mr Rigby had cross-appealed regarding the quantum of damages. The dispute concerned the extent of the Council's duty of care as the occupier of the land on which the BMX track was situated, and whether it had breached that duty.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the Council, as occupier, owed a duty of care to an inexperienced rider using the BMX track, and if so, whether that duty had been breached by failing to fence off a particular section of the track. The court also considered whether the obviousness of the risks associated with BMX riding, particularly for an inexperienced rider, negated or restricted the Council's duty of care. Further issues included causation of the injury, the extent of any contributory negligence by Mr Rigby, and the adequacy of the trial judge's reasons for judgment and assessment of damages.

The Court of Appeal held that the Council, as occupier, owed a duty of care to users of the BMX track, including inexperienced riders. The obviousness of the risks did not extinguish this duty, although it was a relevant consideration in assessing whether the duty had been breached. The court found that the Council was entitled to expect reasonable care from young entrants, but this did not absolve it of its duty to take reasonable steps to avoid foreseeable injury. The court applied common sense reasoning to infer causation in the absence of precise evidence. The court also considered the principles of contributory negligence, requiring a comparison of culpability.

The appeal and cross-appeal were allowed in part. The award of damages was varied by deducting $101,684, resulting in a final verdict for Mr Rigby in the sum of $1,745,852.70. The appellant and the second respondent were ordered to pay Mr Rigby's costs of the appeal and cross-appeal, and their own costs in relation to the issue of contribution.