Woods v Multi-Sport Holdings Pty Ltd

[2000] WASCA 45

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Tort
2. › Negligence
3. › Breach of duty of care
4. › Sporting activities
5. › Indoor cricket
6. › Whether operator breached duty by failing to provide protective helmets
7. › Whether operator breached duty by failing to warn of risk of eye injury
8. › Obvious risk inherent in game
9. › Occupiers' Liability Act 1985 (WA), s 5
1. Appeal
2. › Standard of appellate review
3. › Findings of fact by trial judge
4. › Whether error demonstrated in conclusions of fact

Quick Take

An operator of an indoor cricket facility does not breach its duty of care by failing to provide protective helmets where no suitable helmet has been designed for the sport, outdoor cricket helmets pose collision risks in the confined playing area, and helmet use is a rarity in the sport. No duty to warn arises where the risk of being struck by the ball is obvious and inherent in the game and appreciated by the player.