Plaintiff [Shirt] was gravely injured after water skiing in a lake.

The water was really shallow in some places, and that is why the Plaintiff was injured.

The Defendant erected a 'deep water' sign close to where the Plaintiff was hurt, which meant to serve as a border - beyond it, the water starts getting shallower.The plaintiff became a quadriplegic after striking his head on the bottom of a lake while water skiing. The water at that point was just over one metre deep. The plaintiff argued that he was misled into believing the lake was generally deep and safe for inexperienced skiers, by a nearby ‘Deep Water’ sign erected by the Council’s engineer

2)Lying at the heart of this matter, however, is the necessity to ensure, as far as possible, that consumers are not unnecessarily or, through no fault of their own, unknowingly exposed to the risk of injury or other adverse consequences being suffered by reason of their use of products available to them in the marketplace.

3)  This is to be judged by looking forward at the prospect of the risk of injury.

 In the present case, although the risk of injury was reasonably foreseeable, a reasonable council

would not have marked every point in its municipal district from which a person could enter a body of water, and warned against or prohibited diving from that point.

Hello,

First of all this website helps you in giving you legal opinions in respect to Indian Legal System.

However, there are two parts in a judgment ratio decendi and obitur dictum. Ratio is the reasoning of the case and thereupon you need to decipher the outcome of the case.

Regards

Firslty, I know that sometimes the cases which we read may not go into our head due to number of reasons.

Secondly, I advice you to first read the facts of the case twice then start reading the observations of each judge.

Thirdly, and where as same as the above mentioned case, when you are unable to conclude as to who won’t the case then try to calculate the each judge’s conclusion, and the maximum number either for positive or negative means had won the case.

Dear client,

Sometimes suggestion of the judges as taken as judgement of the case.

Dear Client,

Kind of surprise, i think you didn't read the judgement carefully. In this case appeal is filed by the council agasint the order of tribunal - issue was - responsibility to compensate employer for breach of duty to take care by employee.

Lower court had ordered against the council , hence this appeal.

Appellant court hold - In my opinion there is no evidence that Mr. McPhan, or the Shire (council member ), was guilty of negligence.

I would allow the appeal, set aside the verdict and judgment in favour of the respondent, and enter judgment for the appellant. (at p54)

Might the last portion is confusing you. Avoid it that may be typing mistake

Orders

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Application for special leave to appeal refused with costs.

Hi,

You are suggested to read the complete judgment. It gives complete understanding of case. In the starting paragraphs, there are versions or averments of each party and thereafter, the scrutiny or analysis by the judge. After going through analysis, you will come to know which party has merit and the party having merit wins the case.

As a student you can clarify the desired details from your tutor.

Alternately you may learn how to interpret or understand the judgments through a senior lawyer/mentor with whom you may be doing internship.

You may even attend a senior's office during your free time and get the issues clarified from the senior advocate.

If you have produced the reported matter then some clarifications could have been got from this forum too.

However to the understanding about the case the following are given for your information with regard to the case referred by you:

The plaintiff became a quadriplegic after striking his head on the bottom of a lake while water

skiing. The water at that point was just over one metre deep. The plaintiff argued that he was misled

into believing the lake was generally deep and safe for inexperienced skiers, by a nearby ‘Deep

Water’ sign erected by the Council’s engineer.

A risk of injury being ‘foreseeable’ has nothing to do with the probability or improbability of its

occurrence. It is simply asserting that the risk is not one that is ‘far-fetched or fanciful’.

The court observed that:

The plaintiff suffered serious injury after diving into water and striking their heads on the

sand below. The plaintiff saw many other people diving safely at the same place.

 When determining the standard of care, it is necessary to judge what a reasonable person would

have done to avoid the risk.

 This is to be judged by looking forward at the prospect of the risk of injury.

 In the present case, although the risk of injury was reasonably foreseeable, a reasonable council

would not have marked every point in its municipal district from which a person could enter a body

of water, and warned against or prohibited diving from that point.

Therefore it can be understood tht the plaintiff's case was not entertained by the court