Dreamworld Ride Accident Case Study

This assignment provides a detailed analysis of the Dreamworld ride accident, where four people died in a fatal collision. The case study examines the negligence of Ardent Leisure Ltd, the operator of the ride, and its breach of duty of care. The assignment also discusses the damage claim that can be made by the beneficiaries of the deceased persons under the Civil Law (Wrong) Act 2002. It concludes with an interpretation of the court's potential award in favor of the family members of the deceased individuals.

Torts of Negligence

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
SUMMARY OF FACTS:................................................................................................................1
ASSUMPTIONS:.............................................................................................................................3
SUMMARY OF ISSUE...................................................................................................................3

INTRODUCTION
The present case study is about an accident which took place in Dreamworld's thunder
River Rapids Ride in 2016, where four peoples died in that accident. The mishap could have
been stopped if emergency button to stop the ride have been used on time, but operator was
unaware of the fact of use of that button. There are other factors which can indicates the
negligence on behalf of authorities of Dreamworld. In this essay a detail study of tort of
negligence and its elements will be discussed. The plaintiff in this case is the estate of the
deceased and defendant here is Ardent Leisure Limited, which is the parent company of
Dreamworld. The report will reflect that whether a claim against defended can be made under
common law of negligence.
Plaintiff: The estate of deceased (who died in Thunder River Rides of Dreamworld- Kate, Luke,
Roozi and Cindy)
Defendant: Parent company of Dreamworld: Ardent Leisure Ltd.
SUMMARY OF FACTS:
Torts of Negligence:
A legal action which can be brought against a person (defendant) who owed a duty of
care towards a person with whom a tort is done. Tort means a civil wrong done to a person or a
group of persons by other because of negligence (The law of Tort, 2018). Three major elements
in tort are:
1. Duty of care: the defendant owed a duty to take reasonable care of plaintiff at the time of
act of negligence. This means defendant is responsible to make sure a care of plaintiff is
taken when an act/ activity is being performed. When an act of negligence occurs at that
time also defendant owe same duty to plaintiff.
Civil liability Act 2002: section 5B (1)
 A person cannot be held liable for negligence in taking care of risk of harm,
unless was not foreseeable and significant.
 A reasonable person would have taken precaution in that condition for avoidance
of harm if proper care was taken, seriousness of harm was known.
2. Breach: this means defendant fails to comply with given duty of care. The requisite
standards of care were not confirmed by defendant (Barry, 2017). He did not adhere to
1

his duty completely in taking care of plaintiff. The breach of duty of care is considered as
negligence on behalf of defendant.
Civil liability Act 2002: Section 5B (2): Standard care for personal injury
A reasonable care was taken by defendant by taking precautions against risk of harm, can be
determined by facts that
 If care was not taken, there is a probability that harm will occur
 Likely seriousness of harm was determined A burden for taking precautions to avoid risk of harm was considered
3. Damage: for breach of duty the plaintiff can claim damages which are not too unlikely.
Claims can be made when there is a significant injury or damage have occurred to plaintiff
(Higginson, 2015). A compensation can be given for actual damages only. This includes physical
injury- a loss of sight, deafness, broken limbs, brain injury etc.
Civil law (wrongs) Act, 2002
Harm:
General principle: For establishment of harm following are required
1. For happening of harm, negligence was necessary.
2. The scope of negligence of defendant can be extended to injury of harm.
Burden of proof: plaintiff always bears burden of proof for proving negligence liability of
defendant (Civil law (Wrong) Act, 2002, 2018). It is responsibility plaintiff or his/her client to
prove that there was an act of negligence for duty of care on behalf of defendant.
(Chapter 3)
Section 24: Liability for a persons' death:
 Due to a wrongful act or omission which caused death of a person,
 The act or omission if not occurred and caused death, would have made the person liable
for a claim of damage,
Section 25: damages for death of a person:
 Court may award a claim of damage for death of a person or group of persons for which
an action was brought up b their beneficiaries,
2

 Amount of damages award is after deducting amount of cost non recovered from
defendant and then be divided among beneficiaries in the proportion decided by court.
 Damage amount may include -funeral expenses, any hospital or medical expenses
incurred before death on treatment of injury occurred and any other reasonable expenses
as court may think fit.
 For deciding whether an expense is reasonable or not the religious and cultural situations
of dead person and deed person's family members shall be taken into regards.
ASSUMPTIONS:
Emergency button: There was an emergency button to stop the ride immediately which
could have stopped the collision before time.
Ride failure: The ride failed two times before the fatal accident occurred, at 1.50 am
and 1.09 am without any incidents as ride was fixed.
SUMMARY OF ISSUE
Negligence’s:
The negligence can be proved by estate of deceased persons as burden of proof is on
them. The defendant Ardent Leisure Ltd can be proved guilty under tort of negligence for breach
of duty of care bestowed to them by law (Quinlan and et.al., 2015).
 Risk was foreseen as ride broke two times before accident
 risk was significant, as accident resulted in 4 people died in accident.
 Person operating ride was a young person means no experience and no knowledge about
use of emergency button.
Damage claim:
According to section 24 and 25 of chapter 3 of civil law (wrong) Act 2002, it beneficiary
of deceases person can make a claim for damages in form of death of 4 persons. As an omission
of act by operator was negligence of care of duty and for which same damage can be claimed.
Interpretation:
In the above case, death of 4 persons in a ride of Dreamworld, it can be held that the
claim on Ardent Leisure Ltd for damages is right because the company is responsible for any
3

wrongful act done on its property (Boag, King and Williams, 2017). Accordion to tort of
negligence, there was a breach for due of care on behalf of company. So, court can grant an
award in form of damages to all 4 persons to their beneficiaries. The award can include amount
for their funeral expenses and deduct such expenses which was due from defendant. The
proportion of amount to family of each deceased person can be decided by court but I this case it
can be equal as all four persons succumbed to death immediately after accident.
4

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Barry, C., 2017. Statutory modifications of contributory negligence at common law. Precedent
(Sydney, NSW). (140). p.12.
Boag, N., King, J. and Williams, M., 2017. Police accountability in Australia: Complaint
mechanisms and civil litigation. Precedent (Sydney, NSW). (143). p.14.
Higginson, S., 2015. Global focus: Climate change litigation: Landmark dutch ruling raises
questions for Australia. LSJ: Law Society of NSW Journal. (15). p.22.
Quinlan, M and et.al., 2015. Administering the cost of death: Organisational perspectives on
workers' compensation and common law claims following traumatic death at work in
Australia. International journal of law and psychiatry. 38. pp.8-17.
Pdf
The law of Tort. 2018 [PDF]. Available through
:<http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/a/2002-40/current/pdf/2002-40.pdf>.
Civil law (Wrong) Act, 2002. 2018. [PDF]. Available through:<
http://www.lawvision.com.au/uploads/PDFs/Tort%20Law%20.pdf>.
5