Dreamworld’s Thunder River Rapids Ride in operation prior to last October. Images used for illustrative purposes only.
A Duty of Care Leading tourism industry lawyer Anthony J Cordato explains why Dreamworld failed in its duty of care to keep guests on its Thunder River Rapids ride safe during last October’s tragic incident that claimed the lives of four people
W
hat can the Dreamworld tragedy teach us about the legal duty of care for the safety of visitors in a theme park? Allow me to share this synopsis with you – where is the legal duty of care for the safety of visitors to be found? It is found in two places: The guarantee of due care and skill which is in the Australian Consumer Law. The guarantee is inserted by law into every contract for the supply of services. It covers services provided by everyone in the tourism industry, from theme parks to hotels and resorts to tour operators to airlines and transport providers. The duty of care to avoid negligence
which is in the Civil Liability Law. The duty is to take precautions against a risk of harm which is foreseeable and is significant. The precautions are those that a reasonable person would take to keep the public safe. Why did Dreamworld fail in its legal duty of care for safety? No definitive reasons have yet emerged these will be explored by the Queensland Coroner at a Coroner’s inquest which is expected to take place early next year. So the possible reasons I set out below are pure speculation, and are by no means comprehensive. Reason 1: The riders were not adequately restrained against being thrown from the raft. All four riders who
58 Australasian Leisure Management Issue 123, 2017
were killed were thrown from the raft. The restraints in the raft were a lap sash seatbelt and a bar to hold. There should have been a double shoulder harness, as in roller coaster rides. Reason 2: The conveyor belt which was lifting the raft had been unsafely modified. The conveyor belt lifted the rafts at the end of the ride to the start of the ride loop. The accident occurred because the raft in front had got stuck at the top, and when the fatal raft hit it, it flipped. Two riders fell through the slats and drowned (the other two were crushed on the slats). They fell through because every second slat had been removed - the reason was that when a wooden slat broke, it was not replaced. Instead, the remaining slats were evenly redistributed. Reason 3: Where was the person with the ‘stop ride’ button? The normal practice is that attendants are stationed in line of sight positions along rides in theme parks. They have the ability to stop a ride if they see something wrong. It is not known if an attendant was watching the conveyor belt on this ride. If they were, why did they not stop the ride? Reason 4: There was no separator to prevent rafts from colliding with each other on the conveyor belt. It is normal for rafts / cars to be kept separate with a separator. In summary, the reasons are either due to defects in the equipment or in the supervision. What is Dreamworld’s liability for compensation claims? Dreamworld, the same as every theme park/recreational activity operator, enters into a contract with every visitor who enters. The conditions of contract are found in the entry pass, and the visitor is legally bound by them. The conditions include disclaimers of liability. The disclaimers of liability for injury and death are found under the ‘Responsibility’ heading. The Dreamworld ‘Responsibility’ disclaimer states: The Company will not be liable to any person in respect of loss of life or personal injury. It is perfectly legal for theme park operators to exclude civil liability for negligence by using a disclaimer.