Insurance Law

Flight Training: Still a Dangerous Recreational Activity?

Contact: Shannon O'Hara; Carter Newell (Queensland, Australia)

Background
Carter Newell's Injury Liability Gazette (Volume 2) (1) previously discussed the New South Wales District Court decision in Campbell v Hay (2).  Readers of the Gazette may recall this case involved a claim by the Plaintiff, Mr Campbell (Campbell) for injuries sustained as a result of a forced landing (due to engine failure) in a paddock in the Hartley Valley, NSW. 

 

At the time of the incident, Campbell was receiving a flying lesson from the defendant, Mr Hay (Hay) in a single engine 'Jabiru' aircraft. Campbell alleged Hay was aware of two occasions of engine vibration on the training flight and despite this, negligently failed to ensure the aircraft was only flown in areas close to suitable landing strips, to be used in the case of an emergency.

While the District Court found Hay to have been negligent in the way he responded to the second occasion of aircraft vibrations, the Court held he was not liable for the negligence because Campbell's injuries were sustained as a result of the materialisation of an obvious risk of a dangerous recreational activity.(3)

Campbell sought to appeal the District Court's decision, and Hay utilised a legal mechanism known in NSW as a 'Notice of Contention' (4) in order to have the negligence finding against him challenged without varying the District Court's ultimate decision which was in Hay's favour.

To read the full article, click here.

< Back