Basic HTML Version
wood panelling was aesthetically pleasing for a vessel
in private use, a vessel for commercial purposes
required a dif ferent standard of f itting. The Court
found that the Defendant ’s duty of care could have
been discharged by the use of a physical safety
barrier across the stairway until all passengers were
on board and given a thorough safety brief ing. Once
the passengers’ expectations had been adjusted,
the Defendant ’s duty would be satisf ied even if the
barrier were locked open. The Court concluded that
the failure to implement a safety system comprising
a combination of warnings and physical solutions
amounted to a breach of duty and was a signif icant
cause of the Plaintif f ’s injury.
The Court rejected the Defendant ’s argument that the
stairway was an “obvious risk” for the purposes of the
Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) and noted that, considering
the conf ines of the vessel ’s saloon and the unique
structure and situation of the stairway, the stairway
was not such an obvious risk that the Defendant was
absolved of its duty to issue a warning.
The outcome of the case ultimately turned upon its
individual facts and Devereaux SC DCJ noted that it did
not set a precedent for every sailing charter business.
However, the decision illustrates the importance of
sailing charter operators reviewing their vessels to
identify features which might pose hazards to patrons
not used to the conf ined spaces of sailing vessels such
as steep stairways and low doorways. They should then
consider the best means of managing the risks of these
potential hazards through the presence of warning
markings, physical barriers and safety brief ings.
TOUCHLINE
ISSUE 20 | MARCH 2015 |
13