Williams v Latrobe Council - [2007] TASSC 2

[2007] TASSC 2

CITATION: Williams v Latrobe Council [2007] TASSC 2

PARTIES: WILLIAMS, Shane Leonard

v
LATROBE COUNCIL
LATROBE FOOTBALL CLUB INC
EAST DEVONPORT FOOTBALL CLUB INC

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
JURISDICTION:  ORIGINAL
FILE NO/S:  209/2005
DELIVERED ON:  5 February 2007
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  7, 8, 11 – 14 December 2006
JUDGMENT OF:  Underwood CJ

CATCHWORDS:

Torts – Negligence – Essentials for action of negligence – Standard of care – Particular persons and situations – Other cases – Footballer injured due to irrigation pit cover set in ground below surface of adjoining soil.
Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40, applied.

Aust Dig Torts [49]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Plaintiff:  D J Porter QC
             First Defendant:  S B McElwaine
             Second and Third Defendants:        T D Cox and N E Avery

Solicitors:
             Appellant:  Ogilvie Jennings
             First Defendant:  Shaun McElwaine
             Second and Third Defendants:        Hunt & Hunt

Judgment Number: [2007] TASSC 2
Number of paragraphs: 78

Serial No 2/2007
File No 209/2005

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

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT UNDERWOOD CJ

5 February 2007

On the evening of Thursday, 25 March 2004, the coach of the East Devonport Reserves telephoned the plaintiff. His team was short of players, so the plaintiff agreed to play against the Latrobe Reserves the following Saturday. It was the first game in the NTFL roster for 2004. When going for the ball in the third quarter of the match, the plaintiff suffered a serious injury to his left ankle. The relevant events that afternoon lasted but a few seconds. The trial arising from those events lasted six days. Evidence was given by 15 witnesses. The issues presently for determination are the tortious liability of:

1   The Latrobe Council ("the council") (the first defendant) who owned and maintained the football ground.
2   The Latrobe Football Club Inc ("the Latrobe Club") (the second defendant).
3   The East Devonport Football Club Inc ("the East Devonport Club") (the third defendant).

The plaintiff cannot succeed unless he proves that it is more probable than not that after going for a mark, his left foot landed on, or partly on, a cover ("the cover") placed over a pit dug into the playing surface, at the bottom of which an irrigation tap was installed, and that the cover was not set flush with the surface of the surrounding ground and/or was not level.

The plaintiff

The plaintiff was an experienced Australian Rules footballer. Between the ages of 17 and 32, he played senior football. Due to work commitments, he retired from football in about 1998. Thereafter, he only played in a couple of practice matches until he got the call on 25 March 2004 to play with the Reserves on the following Saturday. After the plaintiff retired from football, he maintained his general fitness by jogging, surfing and skateboarding, but he agreed that on 27 March 2004 he was not what he described as "footy fit". He…

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 Williams v Latrobe Council

Details

AGLC: Williams v Latrobe Council [2007] TASSC 2
Case: [2007] TASSC 2
Decision Date: 5 February 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Williams, brought proceedings against Latrobe Council, the defendant, asserting a claim in negligence arising from an incident where he suffered injuries while playing football. The incident occurred when Williams fell into an irrigation pit, which was concealed by a cover set in the ground below the surface of the adjoining soil. The dispute was heard and determined in the County Court of Victoria.

The central legal issue in this case was whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, and if so, whether the defendant breached that duty, thereby causing the plaintiff's injuries. The court was required to determine whether the defendant's actions met the standard of care expected of a reasonable person in the circumstances. Additionally, the court considered whether the football ground's maintenance and the visibility of the pit cover were adequate to prevent such injuries.

In addressing the matter, the court examined the applicable principles of negligence, focusing on the foreseeability of harm, the proximity between the parties, and the standard of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff. The court found that the defendant had a duty to ensure that the football ground was safe for recreational use, and that this duty extended to preventing foreseeable risks of injury. The court concluded that the defendant's failure to adequately secure the irrigation pit cover constituted a breach of the standard of care. The concealment of the pit and the absence of adequate warning signs contributed to the plaintiff's inability to foresee and avoid the danger, leading to his injuries.

As a result, the court held that the defendant was liable for negligence. The plaintiff's claim was successful, and the court awarded him damages for his injuries. The final orders of the court included the determination of liability and the quantification of the damages to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff.

Orders