On 24 September 1992, an appeal was filed against the decision made by Full Court Of Supreme Court Of Western Australia which dismissed the Appeal made against the decision of the trial judge (Nicholson J.) in the favor of the Rottnest Island Authority (defendant) , in the High Court Of Australia (Canberra). The trial judge dismissed the action brought by the appellant (Paul Maurice Nagle) against the Rottenest Island resort (respondent) to pay for the damages for personal injury suffered by the appellant, which was alleged by the plaintiff as caused due to the negligence on
…show more content…
On 16 October, 1977, the appellant visited the reserve and dived in to the Basin from a partially submerged rock ledge into the water. He became a quadriplegic almost immediately as his head struck a fully submerged rock. As a consequence, he brought this action for damages for the injuries he suffered, he further claimed that the Board failed to give any warning , adequate or otherwise, that it was unsafe to dive from the ledge when the Board must knew or ought to have known that the ledge formed a natural platform which could be assumed or is assumed to be safe for diving by the members of the public ,and he suffered injuries resulting from the breach of duty , and thus the Board neglected its duty …show more content…
Important supportive evidence were given by the trial judge and after reading and reviewing the evidence and reasons for the decision , there had not been any doubt the risk of injury to any person who would have dive from the ledge was foreseeable with reason. This decision was considered appropriate on the basis of the decision made in the previous case of Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980), according to which a risk may constitute a foreseeable risk even though it is unlikely to occur. Even in the circumstances, when it was not safe to dive in the water at the Basin, a person still might dive including the children and people who have impaired sight might do so as well. In a addition to that there was a possibility that a person visiting the Basin , who had an intention to swim might dive in the water from the ledge without making the ascertainment whether it was safe to dive from that location or not . Thus, the possibility that one or more people to whom duty of care is owed might not take proper care for his or her personal safety and the person accompanying them , should be taken into consideration by the person who owes a duty of care to others. McLean v.Tedman (1984), March vStramare (Eand M.H) Pty.LTd. (1991).
On 16 October, 1977, the appellant visited the reserve and dived in to the Basin from a partially submerged rock ledge into the water. He became a quadriplegic almost immediately as his head struck a fully submerged rock. As a consequence, he brought this action for damages for the injuries he suffered, he further claimed that the Board failed to give any warning , adequate or otherwise, that it was unsafe to dive from the ledge when the Board must knew or ought to have known that the ledge formed a natural platform which could be assumed or is assumed to be safe for diving by the members of the public ,and he suffered injuries resulting from the breach of duty , and thus the Board neglected its duty …show more content…
Important supportive evidence were given by the trial judge and after reading and reviewing the evidence and reasons for the decision , there had not been any doubt the risk of injury to any person who would have dive from the ledge was foreseeable with reason. This decision was considered appropriate on the basis of the decision made in the previous case of Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980), according to which a risk may constitute a foreseeable risk even though it is unlikely to occur. Even in the circumstances, when it was not safe to dive in the water at the Basin, a person still might dive including the children and people who have impaired sight might do so as well. In a addition to that there was a possibility that a person visiting the Basin , who had an intention to swim might dive in the water from the ledge without making the ascertainment whether it was safe to dive from that location or not . Thus, the possibility that one or more people to whom duty of care is owed might not take proper care for his or her personal safety and the person accompanying them , should be taken into consideration by the person who owes a duty of care to others. McLean v.Tedman (1984), March vStramare (Eand M.H) Pty.LTd. (1991).