Woods v Multi-Sport Holdings Pty Ltd [2002] HCA 9 7 March 2002 P93/2000
ORDER
Appeal dismissed with costs.
On appeal from the Supreme Court of Western Australia
Representation:
B S Spinks for the appellant (instructed by Marks & Sands)
R J L McCormack for the respondent (instructed by Srdarov Richards Burton)
Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.
CATCHWORDS
Woods v Multi-Sport Holdings Pty Ltd
Negligence – Occupier's liability – Duty of care – Eye injury suffered by player of indoor cricket – Failure to provide protective helmet – Failure to warn of specific risk of eye injury – Whether conduct of occupier reasonable in the circumstances – Relevance of industry practice and rules of game – Relevance of obviousness of risk – Voluntary assumption of risk – Causation of damage.
GLEESON CJ. The appellant suffered serious injury to an eye while playing indoor cricket. The game was being played at a facility, owned and operated, as a business, by the respondent. The respondent organised the game in which the appellant was playing, and provided the equipment used by the players. The equipment included bats, balls, thin hand gloves, and groin protectors, but not helmets or pads. The appellant sued for damages in the District Court of Western Australia. Although various causes of action were pleaded, the claim was ultimately treated as founded in negligence. The trial judge, French DCJ accepted that the respondent owed a duty of care to the appellant. Indeed, the existence of a duty was not in dispute; it was the content of the duty and, in particular, whether there had been a breach of duty, that was the principal area of contention. French DCJ considered that, because the respondent organised and controlled the games that were played at its facility, its responsibility to players went beyond the state of the premises. It had a duty under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1985 (WA) but it also had a wider duty to "take reasonable steps to avoid the risk of injury to players arising from the dangers involved in playing indoor cricket". That formulation of the duty was not challenged in argument in this Court. The argument was about the steps the respondent ought reasonably to have taken. If the trial had been before a judge and jury, that would have been a question for the jury to decide as the tribunal of fact. There was no jury, and the issue was one for the trial judge. But it was one for her factual judgment, in the light of the circumstances of the case.
There were two respects in which it was ultimately contended that the respondent had failed to take reasonable steps to avoid the risk of injury to players, including the appellant. The trial judge concluded that in…
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 Woods v Multi-sport Holdings Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Woods v Multi-sport Holdings Pty Ltd [2002] HCA 9
Case
[2002] HCA 9
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This case concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia following a decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Western Australia, which had upheld a judgment in favour of the respondent, Multi-Sport Holdings Pty Ltd. The appellant, Mr Michael Woods, had suffered a severe eye injury while playing indoor cricket at Multi-Sport's premises. Mr Woods alleged that Multi-Sport had breached its duty of care by failing to provide him with a protective helmet and by failing to warn him of the specific risk of eye injury associated with playing indoor cricket.
The High Court was required to determine whether Multi-Sport had breached the duty of care owed to Mr Woods. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the failure to provide protective headgear and the absence of a warning about the particular dangers of eye injury constituted a breach of that duty. The court also had to assess the relevance of industry practice, the rules of the game, and the obviousness of the risk in determining whether Multi-Sport's conduct was reasonable in the circumstances.
The High Court, in a majority decision, found that Multi-Sport had breached its duty of care to Mr Woods in two respects: by not providing a protective helmet and by not warning him of the special risks of eye injury. The court reasoned that the reasonableness of an occupier's conduct in warning an entrant of a risk is a question of fact dependent on all circumstances, and the obviousness of a risk is only one factor. The court did not consider the risk of serious eye injury in indoor cricket to be so obvious as to negate the need for a warning or the provision of protective equipment.
The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Background
Background to the litigation
In my opinion, Multi-Sport breached its duty in two respects: first, in not providing the appellant – Mr Michael Woods – with a protective helmet and second, in not warning him of the special risks of eye injury while playing indoor cricket. Accordingly, the appeal should be allowed and judgment entered in favour of Mr Woods.The material facts Multi-Sport has premises in Perth fitted out with two courts suitable for playing the game of indoor cricket. The courts were available for hire by teams wishing to play indoor cricket. Almost all games played at the premises were organised by Multi-Sport which also provided equipment for the players including bats, balls, thin batting gloves and plastic groin protectors. No protective helmets or eye protection were provided. Nor was there any sign that would alert a player to the dangers of serious eye injury from playing indoor cricket or to other dangers involved in playing the game. The two indoor cricket courts were separated by means of meshing. Entrance to a court was by means of a flexible net "door". When the case was tried in the District Court, a sign above the net door declared that "Players play at own risk". However, the trial judge was not satisfied that the sign was affixed to the net on 12 March 1996 when Mr Woods was injured or on an earlier occasion when he had visited the premises. On 12 March 1996, Mr Woods was a member of a team playing in a match at the premises of Multi-Sport. Each player had paid Multi-Sport six or seven dollars to play the game. Shortly after Mr Woods commenced batting, he attempted to pull a "full toss" to the side, but the ball ricocheted off his bat and hit him in the right eye. As a result, he has effectively lost the sight of his right eye. He has no central vision although he does have certain peripheral vision. His loss of sight has been assessed at 99%. In Western Australia, 17 centres offer facilities for the playing of indoor cricket; 13 of them are members of the West Australian Indoor Cricket Federation, itself a member of the Australian Indoor Cricket Federation. The Australian Indoor Cricket Federation is the regulating body for indoor cricket. From time to time, it publishes a set of official rules that govern the playing of indoor cricket. Those rules are binding on the West Australian Indoor Cricket Federation and its members. Multi-Sport is a member of that Federation. The game, in which Mr Woods was injured, was being played under the rules prescribed by the Australian Indoor Cricket Federation. Under the rules, two sets of stumps are pitched opposite and parallel to each other at a distance of 20 metres. The court on which the game is played must be no less than 28 metres and no more than 30 metres in length. It must be no less than 10.5 metres and no more than 12 metres in width. Each team has eight players. At any time during an innings ten players are on the court – two batsmen and eight fielders. An umpire controls the game, applies the rules and keeps the scores of the respective teams.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
GLEESON CJ
HUGH J
KIRBY J
(dissent)
It is right to describe that observation as a comment. It is not a proposition of law. What reasonableness requires by way of warning from an occupier to an entrant is a question of fact, not law, and depends on all the circumstances, of which the obviousness of a risk may be only one. And, as a proposition of fact, it is not of universal validity. Furthermore, the description of a risk as obvious may require closer analysis in a given case. Reasonableness would not ordinarily require the proprietor of an ice skating rink to warn adults that there is a danger of falling; but there may be some skaters to whom such a warning ought to be given. Nevertheless, as a generalisation, what Kirby J said is, with respect, fair comment. That is how French DCJ and the Full Court understood it, and they did no more than indicate that they regarded it as apposite to the present case. There is no error in that.Conclusion The judgment on the issue of negligence made by the trial judge has not been shown to be in error. The appeal should be dismissed with costs. Mc The issue in this appeal is whether Multi-Sport Holdings Pty Ltd ("Multi-Sport"), the respondent, breached the duty of care that it owed to the appellant by failing to provide a protective helmet or by failing to warn him of the danger of sustaining an eye injury while he was playing indoor cricket. The appeal is brought against an order of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Western Australia[6]. That Court unanimously dismissed an appeal against a judgment in favour of Multi-Sport given in the District Court of Western Australia (French DCJ).[6]Woods v Multi-Sport Holdings Pty Ltd [2000] WASCA 45. In my opinion, Multi-Sport breached its duty in two respects: first, in not providing the appellant – Mr Michael Woods – with a protective helmet and second, in not warning him of the special risks of eye injury while playing indoor cricket. Accordingly, the appeal should be allowed and judgment entered in favour of Mr Woods.The material facts Multi-Sport has premises in Perth fitted out with two courts suitable for playing the game of indoor cricket. The courts were available for hire by teams wishing to play indoor cricket. Almost all games played at the premises were organised by Multi-Sport which also provided equipment for the players including bats, balls, thin batting gloves and plastic groin protectors. No protective helmets or eye protection were provided. Nor was there any sign that would alert a player to the dangers of serious eye injury from playing indoor cricket or to other dangers involved in playing the game. The two indoor cricket courts were separated by means of meshing. Entrance to a court was by means of a flexible net "door". When the case was tried in the District Court, a sign above the net door declared that "Players play at own risk". However, the trial judge was not satisfied that the sign was affixed to the net on 12 March 1996 when Mr Woods was injured or on an earlier occasion when he had visited the premises.