James v USM Events Pty Ltd

[2022] QSC 63

Supreme Court of Queensland

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

An organiser of a sporting event that creates a situation where para-athletes in wheelchairs capable of travelling at significantly greater speeds share a narrowing course section with able-bodied athletes owes a duty to take reasonable precautions — such as erecting barriers at identified 'pinch points' — beyond merely relying on competition rules and protocols, particularly where the organiser is aware of the risk of collision and the competitive behaviour of elite para-athletes
The risk of collision between a para-athlete in a wheelchair approaching from behind at speed and an able-bodied runner on a narrowing bend is not an 'obvious risk' within s 13 of the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) where the evidence does not establish that it was commonplace for both categories of athlete to occupy the same part of the course simultaneously, nor is it an 'inherent risk' under s 16 where reasonable precautions could have avoided it
A claim under s 60 of the Australian Consumer Law that is pleaded as a guarantee 'implied within the agreement' rather than as a standalone statutory guarantee, and which fails to plead the statutory basis for damages under s 267 ACL, does not properly disclose a cause of action under the ACL, with the consequence that state Civil Liability Act defences remain applicable