Pollard v Trude

[2008] QCA 421

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Torts
2. › Negligence
3. › Duty of care
4. › Duty to warn
5. › Sporting context
6. › Golf
7. › Whether golfer owed duty to warn fellow player before taking shot
8. › Whether warning of 'Watch out' equivalent to 'Fore'
9. › Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld), ss 9, 13, 15
1. Torts
2. › Negligence
3. › Breach of duty
4. › Standard of care
5. › Sporting context
6. › Whether warning given after mis-hit shot discharged duty of care
7. › Whether reasonable person would have shouted 'Fore' rather than 'Watch out'
1. Torts
2. › Negligence
3. › Causation
4. › Whether different warning would have prevented injury
5. › Whether pre-shot warning would have altered outcome
6. › Whether 'Fore' rather than 'Watch out' would have produced different response
1. Torts
2. › Negligence
3. › Obvious risk
4. › Whether risk of being struck by golf ball was obvious risk
5. › Whether absence of warning was component of risk of harm
6. › Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld), ss 13, 15

Quick Take

A competent golfer does not breach the duty of care by failing to give a pre-shot warning to a fellow player who already knows the shot is about to be taken. A warning of 'Watch out' or its equivalent is synonymous with 'Fore' and constitutes an adequate post-shot warning. The risk of being struck by a golf ball is an 'obvious risk' under s 13 of the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld), and the absence of a warning is not itself part of the 'risk of harm' but rather a factor that may increase the likelihood of the risk materialising.