Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - Accidents & Injuries

Report Accidents and Injuries

Topic Date User

Werribee Gorge Accident 13-May-2006 At 9:00:00 PM kerroxapithecus

Message

On 13/05/2006 patto wrote:

>Sure the tan-bark may have been not thick enough for the 'regulations'
>but 1000s of playgrounds around the country would be similar.

I think that's the problem. Why are they when there are regulations stating that surfaces must be of a certain thickness? Wouldn't the regulations be in place because someone with some expertise has worked out that to prevent injury there should be a certain thickness? Why does the council get to ignore the warning and get away with it?

>If it was a tree in a park that the drunk climbed and fell off, then does
>then should the council be liable for not ensuring a soft landing around
>all trees?

The duty of care would not be the same. The installation of the playground is an invitation to play/climb. I don't think there is a regulation that states there should be a soft landing around trees. A tree is not an invitation to climb like the playground is.

The point is if a service is provided it must be provided safely and in accordance with reasonable regulations and laws. Otherwise don't provide it. I'd rather have no local playground than have an unsafe one.
>
>Law claims to be consistant yet it is amazingly inconsistant across areas.
> For example accidents occur all the time during sports. Most of these
>are foreseeable furthermore many are preventable. However thankfully in
>the world of sport people accept these risks and don't try to blame others.

The same laws would apply if a sporting facility was found to be unsafe and caused an injury. If the injury was caused by the normal play of the game then no negligence.
>
>Your scenario about the airline is completely irrelevant. There is a big
>difference between dangers that you can control such as choosing to climb,
>walk or play compared to dangers that you have to trust somebody else to
>control such as bridge building, aeroplane maintainence and safe medicine.

I see your point but there are inherent dangers in flying in planes too. Also I think we should be able to trust that playground surfaces are safe so I don't think it's that different to the plane scenario.

I think the argument will go round in circles from here. Your opinion is the more popular one but I still remain committed to the idea that when companies and authorities that have the power and money to live up to their duty of care should do so because it's so easy to do so. The court does weigh up the cost and practicability of preventing injury against the foreseeability of the damage.