Bradley Milton Coombe + Lawyer = Lano Shutdown

[browncow]

The full judgement can be read here:

COOMBE -v- SHIRE OF GINGIN & ANOR [2007] WADC 180 (12 October 2007)

"Plaintiff : Friedman Lurie Singh & D'Angelo" - Here we fucking go...
"7. The accident was caused by the negligence of the First Defendant (The council -browca04) in that the First Defendant, its servants or agentsa) failed to ensure that at all material times there were warning signs placed clearly at the sand hills warning/advising participants of the dangers of jumping off sand hills; (Well fucking duh. Do we need signs on buildings saying if you jump off this structure, you will probably die/hurt yourself? -browca04)

(b) failed to provide warning signs to ensure that riders/drivers using the sand hills were aware of the imminent danger lurking from the change of terrain conditions at the sand hills; (As above -browca04)

(c) failed to provide any or any adequate warning that the sand hills from which the Plaintiff jumped from was dangerous; (As above -browca04)

(d) failed to take any or any adequate steps to barricade off and prevent riders/drivers of off road vehicles to jump off the sand hill that the Plaintiff jumped from; (They've already said that the sand moves.. How in the blue fuck is a barricade going to help? I suggest some WRB's. Apparently their cheap! -browca04)

(e) failing to level the sand hill thus obviating the inducement to members of the public to jump from it; (not pursued at trial) (Wait... What? Isn't that they POINT!?!?!? -browca04)
(f) failing to take any or any reasonable care to prevent injury or damage to the Plaintiff from unusual dangers at the sand hills of which it knew or ought to have known; (????????? How retarded is this Magistrate? -browca04)

(g) failed to exclude the public from the sand hills in the circumstances where it knew or ought to have known that the public frequented the sand hills and jumped off the sand hills when it was unsafe and dangerous to do so in the circumstances." (It was a fucking jump park! Even if they had a sign saying "Don't ride your bikes here" some arse clown would still do it! What the fuck!??! -browca04)

"23 He said that he did not have a licence." - Wow.... Just wow. This guy WON?!?!?! -browca04

"32 He was shown the photo of the sign and asked if he had seen this. He said that he had not. He described himself as a cautious person and had he seen the sign he would have read it." *chough* Bullshit *cough* -browca04

"54 Exhibit 3.1 is a photo of a sign containing the information which I have described before. He said that a sign had been in place since 30 June 2000 but had been replaced from time to time after vandalism. He said that the present sign is the same as that which was there in April 2003. There were poles tipped with orange to delineate the boundaries of the ORVA. Consideration had been given to other signs within the ORVA but dismissed on safety grounds. Such signs might have been difficult to see and be hazards in their own right. Accordingly, signs were limited to the carpark area." - So there were signs in a carpark and the plaintiff didn't read them. AND THIS FUCKSTICK WON?!?!?!?!? -browca04

I got bored and skipped a heap of stuff here...

" 'If people want to climb mountains, go hand-gliding or swim or dive in ponds or lakes, that is their affair.'149 That was said in the context of people taking risks which are inherent in the activities which they freely choose to undertake." - Yeah ignore that. It wasn't taken into consideration.... -browca04


"153 I am satisfied in the circumstances of this case that the plaintiff did not take reasonable precautions against the foreseeable risk of injury. The foreseeable risk of injury was that in proceeding over the edge of a dune where the other side could not be seen so that the terrain or indeed the existence of others could not be ascertained is foolhardy. In launching oneself off a sand dune without first ascertaining the nature of the descent one, self-evidently, exposes oneself to a significant risk of harm. A reasonable person, on his/her first visit to the dunes, would not act in such a way." - Well atleast the Judge thinks the Plaintiff was a douche..... -browca04



Just some of my thoughts on the charges/"evidence"

[thro]

Yeah, my thinking wasn't that the rego fee would be used for anything more than admin costs... just an indication that you have entered into a legally binding agreement not to sue the shire in case of injury by applying for the permit...

The money would just be so they can organise someone to process the forms...

Scoundrel: so if this guy had no ORV license, was he somehow breaking the law by riding around without one up there?

[Fastgirl]

It'll get all closed of a shut down. Guaranteed.

[Scoundrel]

Scoundrel: so if this guy had no ORV license, was he somehow breaking the law by riding around without one up there?

Dunno mate. The ORV licences are for the vehicles, not the driver/rider. I would also hazard to guess that if the bike was road registered you are quite free and able to ride up there, as with any gazetted area.

If his bike was unlicensed...not sure. I'll have to read the Off Road Areas Act.

[vscorsa]

I think that common sense needs to come into this, the analogy of the hole in freeway can be used but what about the river and ocean.

We have to fence our pools yet the shires controlling rivers and the beaches don't need to fence them off from the public.

They also don't need to places signs every few metres saying that its dangerous and you can drown.

They also don't make people buy a swimming license or make people sign a waiver to say that it is dangerous and you might drown.

The responsibility is placed on each individual because common sense says there is water and you can drown. This should be the same for Lancelin whether the bloke was riding a bike or walking up the dunes. Common sense says that it is dangerous and you need to be careful and TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for your actions.

[Dryza-nuns]

just an indication that you have entered into a legally binding agreement not to sue the shire in case of injury by applying for the permit...

Scoundrel: so if this guy had no ORV license, was he somehow breaking the law by riding around without one up there?

From my experiences at Lano, the Ranger will turn you around and send you packing if you don't have a number plate on your bike.

I do like the idea of having to 'register' all off road bikes in which the 'contract' would entail that you can in no way sue any poor bastard for your misfortunes whilst 'recreational' riding. Problem being, then you need a Ranger at every off-road area policing this. Too hard basket as far as their concerned..... easier to shut every joint down.

Sad thing is, Bike/Quad sales go up and up every year, and yet they are shutting down places to ride at twice the rate. The only options left will be to join a track or ride on private land, which you can then sue the owner of the property for not having signs posted every 15 feet! Oh fuck here we go again! About the track, anyone here remember what happened at Noble Falls when that wood duck stacked his bike there and sued them? Well now every poor bugger that wants to ride there has to make sure there is someone with a certified first aid ticket there, that is not riding at the time you are on the track.... it sucks balls!

Mick

[Scoundrel]

After having a quick read of the Control of Vehicles (Off-Road) Act 1978, I can tell you that if you are driving a car or riding a motorbike in the ORV area that isn't licensed for normal road use and isn't licensed under the OR Act, you're breaking the law and liable for a - wait for it - $200 fine.

Was this clown's bike actually licensed?

[Scoundrel]

http://decisions.justice.wa.gov.au/s...9WASCA0092.pdf

103 As I have observed, it was necessary for Mr Coombe to establish that the sign which he contended should have been erected would have caused him to modify his actions in a way that would have averted or diminished his injuries. In order to evaluate that proposition, it is necessary to posit the presence of some other sign, of the kind apparently contemplated but not enunciated by the trial judge, and then assess whether such a sign would have caused Mr Coombe to act differently on the day in question, by comparison to the sign which was in place on that day.

104 This is a very difficult exercise to undertake hypothetically in a context in which I have concluded that the sign which was in place on the day adequately discharged the duty of care owed by the Shire. However, as the matter was argued in full, I will express some tentative views on the subject.

105 The first observation I would make concerns the significance which I would attach to the evidence, which was uncontradicted and apparently accepted by the trial judge, of four persons standing on the crest of the sand dune and waving shortly before Mr Coombe arrived at, and fell from, the crest of the dune. If the presence of those persons did not cause Mr Coombe to reduce his speed to the point where he could stop his motorcycle within the terrain visible to him, it is difficult to see why a differently worded sign placed in the carpark would have had that effect.

106 In making this observation, I do not overlook the fact that the trial judge found that the effect of an improved warning upon Mr Coombe would have been to cause him to 'first acquaint' himself with the terrain which I take to be a reference to a process of reconnoitre. However, it seems unlikely to me that Mr Coombe would have undertaken that process on foot, given the difficulties and distances involved. Accordingly, it can be inferred that the trial judge was postulating a process of initial traverse of the area on motorcycle, but at slower speeds than those travelled at the time Mr Coombe suffered his injuries. But if that is the hypothesis, it again seems to me to be particularly pertinent that the presence of four persons waving their hands on the crest of the dune which Mr Coombe was approaching did not cause him to reduce his speed to that which is safe. It seems improbable that any sign would have had that effect.

107 This is a case, like Dederer, where there was a sign in place. That sign was in a prominent position, and clearly warned a reader of the prospect of sudden steep descents. Mr Coombe was unable to say whether or not he read the sign. If he did, it seems unlikely that a sign differently worded would have caused him to modify his behaviour. If he did not read the sign, which was prominently located immediately adjacent to the access road which Mr Coombe used to access the area, and which prominently displayed a map which would be of obvious interest to someone like Mr Coombe, who had never been to the area before and who had, in fact, had difficulty finding it, it is difficult to see why a sign placed in the carpark would have been more likely to attract his attention.

108 For these reasons, while it is difficult to address the Shire's ground of appeal on causation with precision, given that the hypothetical basis for the evaluation of causation is removed by the success of the Shire's first ground, I would nevertheless conclude that the trial judge erred in the conclusion at which he arrived on the issue of causation.

Conclusion
109 For these reasons, I would allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the trial judge, and in its place enter judgment dismissing Mr Coombe's claim.

Common sense prevails. Finally.

[browncow]

Heard about this the other day...

Good to see some of the American way being beaten the fuck out of our legal system.

[XIII]

just another money hungry loser sounds a bit like that bloke that got dunked at the beach
seriously people just have to accept they stuffed up no one else

[browncow]

Dude..

RIP Personal Responsibility.
Dawn of time - 1998

We hardly knew ye.

[ButtNekid]

no not at all the amendments to the Civil Liability Act have solved all of this bullshit of stupid bastards hurting themselves and then suing by the establishment of risk warnings (ie signs) which removes a duty owed, or by providing that no warning is required for obvious risks associated with recreational activities......

[Crashlington]

haha i have a bradley milton coobe on my postie run. very high chance its the same one.

[Bendito]

Stack it on his driveway and sue him!

[Roger Explosion]

^^^^ won't work. precendent's been set............

[Barfrangipani]

his driveway isn't a designated area for dangerous sports, and there are no warning signs!

[Roger Explosion]

^^^^ good point. I'll call Freidman, Laurie and Ambulance Chasingh straight way.

[Xuaxace]

haha i have a bradley milton coobe on my postie run. very high chance its the same one.

You know what to do then .