Originally Posted by
Vag277
For information, Australian government policy on value of human life:
https://www.pmc.gov.au/sites/default...dance_note.pdf
...and
Due diligence - a common law defence against negligence
Where it is possible to guard against a foreseeable risk, which, though perhaps not great, nevertheless cannot be called remote or fanciful, by adopting a means, which involves little difficulty or expense, the failure to adopt such means will in general be negligent.
Chief Justice Sir Harry Gibbs. Turner v. The State of South Australia (1982) (High Court of Australia before Gibbs CJ, Murphy, Brennan, Deane and Dawson JJ).
Vag 277,
It ain't that simple.
There is a lot of case law since that judgement, although it is beloved of Civilair.
A most recent one is the successful appeal by Taree Council re. aeroplanes versus kangaroos --- there is a thread about it.
An important judgement that should be looked at is:
Jones v Bartlett [2000]
HCA 56. 205 CLR 166; 75 ALJR 1; 176 ALR 137. 16 Nov 2000. Case Number: P59/1999.
Look at para.23, in particular, for as good as any definition of "safety" in risk management terms.
In addition, consumer law now allows that "adventure sports" allow participants to assume a risk inherent in the activity, and limits the participant's ability to sue negligence if the outcome is an injury that can be anticipated when things go wrong.
Tootle pip!!