USM Events Pty Ltd v James [2023] QCA 71
When does an event organiser need to take additional precautions to protect participants from a foreseeable risk?
In USM Events Pty Ltd v James [2023] QCA 71, the Queensland Court of Appeal considered whether the organiser of a Gold Coast sporting event breached its duty of care by failing to separate runners from para-athletes using racing wheelchairs through a narrow section of the course.
The Court dismissed the organiser’s appeal, upholding the finding that installing barriers to separate the athletes was a reasonable precaution in the circumstances.
What happened?
USM Events Pty Ltd was an experienced organiser of triathlon events. In February 2018, it conducted a triathlon on the Gold Coast involving more than 1,400 participants, including eight para-athletes using racing wheelchairs.
Because of water conditions, the swim leg was cancelled the day before the event and the triathlon was converted into a duathlon. This meant competitors instead completed a run, cycling leg, and further run.
Both able-bodied runners and para-athletes using racing wheelchairs were required to use the same run course.
Part of that course contained an S-bend approximately five to six metres wide. USM accepted there was a probability that runners and para-athletes would encounter each other during the final run leg.
Dr Sally James was running through the S-bend when she was struck by a para-athlete travelling in a racing wheelchair. She fell and sustained brain and psychiatric injuries.
She brought proceedings against USM in negligence.
What precaution should have been taken?
USM admitted that it owed Dr James a duty of care to avoid a foreseeable risk of injury associated with the event. The central dispute was whether it had breached that duty.
At trial, the Supreme Court found that USM should have used barriers through the S-bend to separate runners from para-athletes using racing wheelchairs.
Several features of the event were relevant. USM knew that:
- Para-athletes could travel considerably faster than runners;
- The altered format increased the number of athletes using the run course;
- The S-bend was narrower than other parts of the course;
- Athletes of substantially different speeds and abilities were participating; and
- Runners and para-athletes were likely to encounter each other on the course.
The trial judge concluded that separating the two groups through this section was a reasonable precaution.
Was expert evidence required?
This became an important issue on appeal.
USM argued that the trial judge could not properly conclude that additional barriers were a reasonable precaution without sufficient expert or industry-standard evidence demonstrating the practicality and safety of that measure.
The Court of Appeal rejected that argument.
The trial judge had considered the available evidence about the proposed precaution, including whether introducing another barrier could itself increase the risk of collisions by narrowing the space available to competitors.
A trial judge was entitled to weigh that evidence, accept some evidence, reject other evidence, and reach findings about whether the precaution was reasonable. The Court of Appeal did not accept that the trial judge had simply substituted her own unsupported reasoning for expert evidence.
The outcome
The Queensland Court of Appeal dismissed USM’s appeal and ordered it to pay Dr James’ costs of the appeal.
The finding that USM breached its duty of care by failing to provide a barrier separating runners from para-athletes through the S-bend therefore remained in place.
The appeal itself concerned the finding of breach of duty, rather than a fresh assessment of Dr James’ damages.
Key takeaways
- Sporting and event organisers may be required to take reasonable precautions against foreseeable risks created by the design and operation of an event.
- A change to an event or activity may alter the risks participants face and require existing safety arrangements to be reconsidered.
- Whether a precaution is reasonable involves considering the particular circumstances, including the probability and seriousness of the risk and the practical implications of the proposed precaution.
- Expert evidence can be important, but the absence of a particular expert or industry-standard opinion does not necessarily prevent a court from finding that a reasonable precaution should have been taken.
- The reasonableness of a precaution must also take account of whether the precaution would introduce other risks.
This case note provides general information about a court decision and does not constitute legal advice. The outcome of any matter depends on its particular facts, evidence, and applicable law.