HA2022 Business Law: Analysis of Flavel v The State of South Australia

This case study provides an analysis of Flavel v The State of South Australia [2007] SASC 50, a case concerning the tort of negligence. The case revolves around a student who sustained a spine fracture during a school-organized windsurfing session and subsequently sued the Department of Education and Children’s Services, alleging a breach of duty of care. The plaintiff argued that the defendant failed to provide adequate instructions, training, safety equipment, and supervision. The defendant contended that they took reasonable steps to ensure student safety and could not have foreseen the specific injury. The court ultimately rejected the plaintiff's claim, finding that the defendant had not breached their duty of care, emphasizing that the duty requires reasonable care to prevent foreseeable injuries, not the prevention of all foreseeable injuries. The analysis references key legal precedents such as Donoghue v Stevenson, Romeo v Conservation Commission, and Wyong Shire Council v Shirt to support the court's reasoning and the principles of negligence law applied in the judgment.

CASE SELECTED
FLAVEL v THE STATE OF SOUTH
AUSTRALIA [2007] SASC 50

AREA OF LAW
 The case is in relation to the tort of
negligence
 Negligence takes place when the rights
of an individual should not be subjected
detriment unnecessarily is violated or
infringed by any other person.
 The principles of tort of negligence had
come to existence through the case of
Donoghue v Stevenson 1932 AC 562.

CASE INTRODUCTION
 This case also involves a party whose
rights have been infringed by a person
who owed a duty of care to him.
 The party has suffered physical injuries.
 The question which the court had to
address in relation to this case is that
whether other party had contravened
the duty of care.

THE FACTS OF THE CASE.
 The plaintiff at the time of the incident
was a year 10 student of Bordertown
High School.
 The school had organized a camp which
was attended by the plaintiff along with
other school students.
 The school and the Camp were under
the control of Department of Education
and Children’s Services.

THE FACTS OF THE CASE.
 The name of the camp was Murraylands
Aquatic Centre.
 The department was the defendant in this
case
 A claim has been brought against the
defendant by the plaintiff in relation to the
physical injury which the plaintiff had
incurred with respect to a windsurfing
session.
 The plaintiff fell in shallow water while
windsurfing and had been subjected to a
spine fracture and now is tetraplegic.

THE ISSUES RAISED BY BOTH PLAINTIFF
AND DEFENDANT.
 In this case allegations have been made by
the plaintiff that the defendant did not
abide by the duty of care which was owed
to the plaintiff as it failed to provide
appropriate instructions to the plaintiff,
making the plaintiff indulge in races while
no proper training had been provided,
making the plaintiff indulge in races in
shallow water where there was risk that the
plaintiff may get injured due to the river
bed, providing a trainer who did not have
adequate training, failing to provide safety
equipments and supervising the plaintiff.

THE ISSUES RAISED BY BOTH
PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT.
 The defendant made a plea in relation
to contributory negligence which has
been abandoned by the court at the trial
in addition opposition to the extension
of time in which the plaintiff could file
the claim was also abandoned.

THE ARGUMENTS WHICH HAD
BEEN MADE BY THE PLAINTIFF
 Defendant did not abide by the duty of care
which was owed to the plaintiff as
 They failed to provide appropriate instructions
to the plaintiff
 making the plaintiff indulge in races while no
proper training had been provided,
 Making the plaintiff indulge in races in shallow
water where there was risk that the plaintiff
may get injured due to the river bed,
 Providing a trainer who did not have adequate
training,
 Failing to provide safety equipments and
supervising the plaintiff.

THE ARGUMENTS WHICH HAD BEEN
PROVIDED BY THE DEFENDANT
 That the defendant took all reasonable steps
possible to make the students avoid any risk
associated with the cap which a reasonable
person would have taken in the position of the
defendant.
 There were significant training provided by the
students before the activity which was as good
as it has been in relation to thousands of past
students who have indulged in similar activities
 The defendants could not reasonable foresee
that even where such training and equipments
in provided to the students they would suffer
the injury which has been faced by the plaintiff

JUDGMENT OF COURT
 The claim made by the plaintiff had
been rejected.
 That the defendant had not breached
the duty of care which was owed to the
plaintiff.
 duty of care has not been breached in
relation to the lessons and the race and
the incompetency of the trainers was
not the cause for which the plaintiff had
incurred the injury.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF
THE DECISION
 In this case it had been stated by the court that
reasonable care had to be taken by the
defendant in relation to avoiding any
foreseeable injuries which may have been
caused to the plaintiff or the other students
while participating in the camp.
 . However the duty does not state that the
defendant has to present all injuries which are
reasonably foreseeable but merely take
reasonable care to prevent such injuries as per
the case of Romeo v Conservation Commission
of the Northern Territory (1998) 192 CLR 431,
Hayne J at 488, [1998] HCA 5 at [155]

 The court further established its view in relation
to the question that whether through the
conduct of racing in the described manner there
was a failure on the part of defendant to comply
with their duty.
 The court rightly referred to the case of Wyong
Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40 at 47 –
48 where it had been stated by the court that for
the question of addressing the issue relating to
breach of duty it must be initially considered by
the court that whether in the defendants position
a reasonable aman would be able to foresee that
a conduct had a risk of harm to the plaintiff or
persons of the same class.

REFERENCES
 Australia is Grant v Australian Knitting
Mills [1935] UKPC 62, [1936] AC 85;
[1935] UKPCHCA 1
 Donoghue v Stevenson 1932 AC 562
 FLAVEL v THE STATE OF SOUTH
AUSTRALIA [2007] SASC 50
 Romeo v Conservation Commission of the
Northern Territory (1998) 192 CLR 431,
Hayne J at 488, [1998] HCA 5 at [155].
 Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146
CLR 40 at 47 – 48