What is a “dangerous recreational activity”?
Under Queensland law, if you are injured whilst participating in a “dangerous recreational activity” you may be disentitled from bringing an action to recover compensation for that injury if it has been caused by the materialisation of an obvious risk inherent in that activity.
In Queensland, a “dangerous recreational activity” is one that involves a significant degree of risk of suffering physical harm.
Is a dangerous recreational activity the same in other states?
Similar laws also operate in the other States of Australia and there have been a number of Court decisions on the issue of what constitutes a “dangerous recreational activity” since these laws have come into operation.
In particular, we have seen a number of determinations on the issue in New South Wales. Under New South Wales legislation, the definition of a “dangerous recreational activity” is defined in their legislation under section 5K as one involving a significant risk of harm.
To date the courts have considered the following to be dangerous recreational activities:
Diving into an uncertain depth of water off a wall;
Kangaroo shooting at night;
Riding a BMX bike in a skate park;
Learning to fly light aircraft;
Doing a backflip from a rope connected to a tree into the water
The courts have held that the following activities are not dangerous recreational activities:
Playing an Oztag Touch Football game;
Calm water cruising;
Snow skiing for the first time and failing to negotiate a ditch at the end of the slope;
Participating in a work retreat with physical challenges including a leap of faith (i.e jumping from a platform to a trapeze bar at seven to eight metres above ground whilst harnessed);
Alighting from the wing of a vintage aircraft.
An example case involving a birthday, and laser tag
The New South Wales Court of Appeal again considered the issue in Action Paintball Games Pty Ltd (in liquidation) v Barker [2013] NSWCA 128, this decision was handed down on 13 May 2013.
The facts are that on 16 May 2008 the Plaintiff, Miss Barker, attended at Action Paintball Games for her brother’s birthday party which included playing laser tag.
She was nine years old at the time, and each player was equipped with a laser gun and they attempted to tag other players and avoid being tagged themselves.
Warnings given to be careful prior to the game
The game was carried out in an area of bushland where there were rough tracks, fallen branches and debris.
A staff member spoke to the children prior to the game commencing in the presence of the Plaintiff’s father.
A warning was given that there were lots of sticks and obstacles in the way and to not run “full out” because you may fall over and hurt yourself.
How the accident happened
The Plaintiff tripped on a tree root and fell suffering a significant fracture to her left elbow.
She sued Action Paintball Games Pty Ltd in negligence and was successful in the District Court before acting judge Hungerford QC who gave judgement in favour of the Plaintiff for which she received an award of damages of $280,000.
The Defendant appealed, and the appeal related solely to the issue of liability, the content of the duty of care and the provisions in the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) dealing with obvious risks and recreational activities.
How the judge broke the claim down
The trial judge concluded that the presence of the tree root on the pathway was not an obvious risk because:
This was not ordinary or natural bushland used for walking but was a location for playing a competitive game which involved running;
The Plaintiff had never been to the land before; and
The Plaintiff had not played laser tag before.
The Court of Appeal’s Findings
The Court of Appeal considered that his reasoning was relevant to a finding of negligence but the judge failed to provide reasoning for supposing the risk which materialised was not an obvious risk.
The Court of Appeal was critical that the trial judge in the first instance did not consider the warning that had been given by the staff member in the presence of the father to be sufficient.
The trial judge held there had been no risk warning, and that the warning that had been given at the commencement of the game, did not qualify because it did not warn of specific obstacles such as tree roots, nor did the warning suggest there should be no running only not to run “full out”.
Suggestion That children should be told not to run
The Court of Appeal found that the suggestion that children should be told not to run at all would be disproportionate to the risk and would diminish the attractiveness of the game.
They also found that it is possible to warn of a risk without instructing the recipient as to all the steps necessary to avoid the risk
At the Appeal the Plaintiff argued that because of her age the Defendant could only rely upon a risk warning if the warning had been given to the parents.
The Court of Appeal found that the father appears to have been present when the general warning was given by the staff.
The Defendant did not owe the Plaintiff a relevant duty of care
The Court of Appeal accepted the Defendant’s reliance on section 5M and found that it should be upheld with the result that the Defendant did not owe the Plaintiff a relevant duty.
As the trial judge addressed the Defendant’s duty and whether it was breached, the Court of Appeal deemed it appropriate to also deal with those issues although they identified that if there was no duty then those questions would not arise.
The Court of Appeal noted that an employee of the Defendant did give a general warning, and the warning spoke of general risks however with a group of young children a longer and more precise warning may have lost their attention.
The risk of harm of tripping and falling is a common risk of daily life
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge relied primarily upon the duty of the Defendant to remove the tree root and questioned whether such a duty would constitute a precaution which a reasonable person in the position of the Defendant should have taken.
The Court of Appeal noted that when assessing that question there is a need to avoid reliance on hindsight and that the obligation to remove obstacles such as the tree root would change the nature of the area and the nature of the recreational activity.
They also found it would be impractical and an unreasonable precaution, and found that there is no evidence of any similar injury occurring in this bushland.
Court of Appeal also considered the “social utility”
The Court of Appeal also considered the “social utility” of the activity and they found there is social utility in providing physical activity for children in a natural environment and it is likely this environment provided an attraction to the children involved.
The court found that all of the circumstances combine to demonstrate that there was no obligation on the Defendant in exercise of its duty of reasonable care to remove the offending tree root.
Laser tag not normally associated with “a significant risk of harm
The Court of Appeal set aside judgement in favour of the Plaintiff and allowed the Appeal, they ordered the Plaintiff to pay the Defendant’s costs of the trial and the Appeal.
We find the decision of the NSW Court of Appeal somewhat harsh in the circumstances of the case, particularly given the laser tag game would not, in the writer’s opinion be considered one normally associated with an activity where there is “a significant risk of harm” being suffered.
This decision is not necessarily reflective of how the Queensland legislation in relation to “dangerous recreational activities” will be interpreted.
Does a boxer have a right to claim from a punch thrown in the ring?
However as the legislative provisions, although similar, are not identical and the injury has to be the result of an obvious risk associated with the recreational activity.
By way of a simple example, a boxing match may be considered a dangerous recreational activity, and a boxer injured from a punch thrown in the fight would not be entitled to claim in relation to such injury.
However, if the injury results from a defective stool that the boxer falls from in between rounds, then the injury has not resulted from an obvious risk associated with the dangerous activity of boxing, but the defect in the stool, and the boxer retains entitlement to claim in negligence for such injury.
Claims Have Time Limits
There is only a small window in which you can make compensation claims in Queensland
Even if you think your actions may have contributed to your injury, you may still have a claim well-worth pursuing
Just press the button below, there is no cost, and no obligation to review your case
Read 5 star ★★★★★