“I deserve compensation for my skiing injuries, because the other skier was negligent.” Which case won?
Skier and ski instructor collide on ski field
In August 2014, a ski instructor employed at a NSW ski resort collided with another skier on the ski field.
Although the ski instructor was not instructing this particular skier, he was acting in the course of his employment.
Both the skier and the ski instructor were competent and experienced skiers, but neither saw the other until the moment before the collision.
Skier injured in collision
The skier suffered injuries to her right hand, left shoulder and left knee.
The injury to her right hand was the most serious of the three, involving a fracture that entailed ligament damage and required surgery for the insertion of hardware.
The skier, who was a hairdresser, was severely impaired in her ability to use both arms.
Skier sues ski instructor’s employer for negligence
The skier sued the ski resort that employed the ski instructor, alleging that the collision was caused by the ski instructor’s negligence and that the ski resort was vicariously liable.
The ski resort accepted that if the ski instructor was negligent, then it was vicariously liable for that negligence.
However, the ski resort argued that because the skier had caused the collision, there was no negligence.
It also argued that even if the ski instructor was negligent, the resort was not liable, because it had the benefit of a statutory defence under the NSW Civil Liability Act 2002 (“the Act”).