Queensland’s Court of Appeal has dismissed a government appeal against an April 2013 ruling that held it mostly at fault for the injuries sustained by Evan Kelly.
Mr Kelly, a 22 year old electrician from county Kilkenny, was in Australia for a three month working holiday. Whilst running down the dunes and jumping into the waters of Lake Wabby, Mr Kelly lost his footing when the sand gave way beneath him towards the bottom of the steep dune he had run down, causing him to inadvertently plunge into the water too close to the water's edge.
Mr Kelly sustained a C6 burst fracture from his head striking the sandy bottom below the water’s surface, resulting in tetraplegia. The sand giving way “converted what was intended to be a jump into the water in perfect safety into an inadvertent head first plunge with the potential for catastrophic results".
Mr Kelly alleged the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service failed to sufficiently warn of known risks in participating in such activity that resulted in an “alarming” history of 18 incidents involving serious spinal injuries in the 17 years prior at the very same location. The park general manager addressed the risks in a report as long ago as 1992, and in 2002 a risk assessment reached the same conclusion that urgent steps were required.
Mr Kelly was a person who observed safety messages during their holiday up Australia’s east coast, according to his three travel companions, and had no history as a risk taker.
Although he watched the QNPWS safety video with his companions as required by the tour operator who provided them with island accommodation, the video contained a short seven second warning about entering shallow lakes and streams but no reference was made to Lake Wabby or the danger posed by running down steep sand dunes into bodies of water with unstable foreshores. Although signs warning of danger posed by shallow water were erected at the lake, the court considered them to be insufficiently frequent and explicit.
"The true nature and extent of the risk of injury had not been brought home to Kelly but it was well known to QNPWS".
The problems with the signs were, firstly "after the first sign there was a 2.5 kilometre arduous trek to the lake and the sign at the entrance to the lake competed for attention with the attraction of the lake".
Secondly, the focus of the pictograms, “if comprehensible at all, was diving and striking one‘s head on a hard surface below the surface of the water, suggesting that the problem was ‘running and diving’ rather than ‘running or diving’”.
The risk was not “obvious” but was instead “a trap for the unwary”.
The State thus failed in its claim that it should be immune to any liability for the injury under the Civil Liability Act 2003 because the injury was “obvious”. The trial judge's original apportionment of fault at 85% to the QNPWS and 15% to Kelly was upheld by the Court of Appeal.
The trial was in respect of liability only and damages were assessed subsequent to liability judgement.
You can read the decision in it's entirety here:
If you have been injured in an incident no matter the circumstances, you should contact us at The Personal Injury Lawyers who may be able to assist you with any claims or queries.