What happened

During a 2011 festival, a light aircraft attempting to take off again struck a Ferris wheel. The wheel intruded into the airstrip's obstacle-clearance area, while the council controlled both the airstrip and adjoining festival land. The passenger and the pilot each brought claims for psychiatric injury.

The issues

The court examined the duties arising from the council's control and approval functions, including the statutory protection for special public-authority powers. It also considered whether the pilot was engaged in a dangerous recreational activity and the different consequences for his own claim and his liability to another person.

The court's decision

The court found that the council knew of and could control the risk, and that no authority with its approval power could properly regard permitting these arrangements as reasonable. The pilot's careless landing attempt also caused the collision. The council was ordered to compensate the passenger with a 35% contribution from the pilot, whose own claim was dismissed under s 5L of the Civil Liability Act 2002.

Understanding the figures

The historical judgment against the council was AUD 1,513,023.30, with the pilot ordered to contribute 35%, AUD 529,558.16, to the council. That contribution was neither additional plaintiff compensation nor a reduction for fault by the passenger. Post-judgment interest was separately ordered; the pilot received no damages on his own claim.

What this case shows

Public-authority liability turned on actual knowledge, control and the interaction of activities, rather than the bare existence of an approval power. The differing outcomes also show that a defence depends on the claimant's activity: barring the pilot's recovery did not erase his negligent responsibility to someone else.

Why another case may differ

The result depends on this flight and the positioning and control of the facilities, rather than all recreational flying or amusement incidents. The passenger's pre-existing vulnerability was considered in assessment. The pilot's hypothetical damages were not an award, and the source records later costs variations, so detailed costs allocation is not presented as finally settled.

Applying it to your claim

Different facts, evidence or procedures, an appeal, or a change in the law may affect how this decision applies. This is general information, not a report of a case handled by Park & Co Lawyers.

Considering a second opinion? →