What happened

The 14-year-old appellant was attending a school adventure camp and climbed the smooth side of an obstacle called Mt Kosciusko using a rope. Her shoes were wet from earlier activities, two or three students ahead of her had slipped at lower levels, and her fall caused tibia and fibula fractures, compartment syndrome and permanent scarring.

The issues

The issue was whether an activity intended to challenge students nevertheless presented an increased, occasion-specific risk after earlier slips and wet footwear, requiring further instructions, supervision or cessation. The appeal also challenged the finding that the appellant merely lost balance and the adequacy of the future economic loss allowance.

The court's decision

The Court found that the appellant did slip and that adequate instruction about safe climbing, reacting to a slip and properly acting as a spotter had not been shown. It set aside the defence judgment and entered judgment for historical AUD 80,519.10 effective from 1 June 2005, with the respondent to pay the trial and appeal costs.

Understanding the figures

The final historical judgment was AUD 80,519.10. The Court retained the AUD 26,000 non-economic loss assessment and other components, but increased the future economic loss buffer from AUD 20,000 to AUD 40,000, raising the total from AUD 60,519.10.

What this case shows

The case recognises that schools need not eliminate challenge and all inherent risk, but must respond when conditions on the day materially increase the danger. A long incident-free history remains relevant, yet it does not excuse ignoring immediate warning signs such as repeated slips before a potentially high fall.

Why another case may differ

Liability did not arise because the obstacle was always unacceptable; it arose from the combination of wet footwear, prior slips, the possible height of a fall and the lack of evidence of specific safety instruction. The dangerous-recreational-activity and obvious-risk provisions were not substantively relied on, and the damages reflect a 2000 accident and the historical assessment setting.

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? →