The Facts

Athlete knocked to ground during running section of triathlon

An athlete had participated in multiple triathlon events leading up to a triathlon in Queensland. Due to poor weather conditions, the event was changed to a duathlon with a run, cycle, run format. The athlete was disappointed in this change because swimming was her strongest skill. Nevertheless, she chose to participate in the event.

The triathlon had able-bodied athletes competing on the same course with para-athletes. During the first leg of the event, the athlete heard yelling and swearing moments before being knocked to the ground by a para-athlete in a racing wheelchair.

She remembered the para-athlete ricocheting out of the wheelchair and hitting the ground, but little else. As a result of this event, the athlete suffered a brain injury and psychiatric injury, as well as some other relatively minor physical injuries.

Athlete claims use of barriers could have prevented her injuries

The athlete brought a claim against the organiser of the event, arguing that it owed her a duty of care and that it failed to consider the risk of injury by not adequately separating para-athletes from able-bodied athletes.

The athlete argued that her injury could have been prevented with better risk assessment of the course and the use of barriers to divide para-athletes from able-bodied athletes at tight junctions throughout the course.

While the event organiser did not dispute that it owed the athlete a duty of care, it did dispute the extent of the duty owed.

Event organiser disputes athlete's claim

The question for the court was whether the injuries suffered by the athlete were caused by any breach of duty by the event organiser, which raised several points in its own defence.

One of these was based on obvious and inherent risk. The organiser argued that the athlete voluntarily assumed this risk by entering the triathlon.

The event organiser also relied on the fact the competition was conducted in accordance with Triathlon Australia Race Competition Rules, as sanctioned by Triathlon Australia. Competitors are obliged to abide by the rules, which state that athletes are responsible for their own safety and the safety of others.

The organiser argued that the prospect of injury only arose if an athlete acted negligently, carelessly or recklessly, emphasising that there was minimal or no risk of collision between competitors who conducted themselves in accordance with the rules.

CASE A

The case for the event organiser

CASE B

The case for the athlete
  • It is common for event formats to change due to the deterioration of weather conditions.
  • Athletes were notified of the change in the format from a triathlon to a duathlon on the afternoon before the event and it was a matter for the individual whether they still wished to compete.
  • We set up courses in accordance with the Triathlon Australian Event Coordination Manual, which does not specify a required width for a course with combined athlete participation.
  • The competition was conducted in accordance with the Triathlon Australia Race Competition Rules, and participating athletes were sent an Athlete Information Guide.
  • Irrespective of the rules, there is an inescapable risk in participating in a triathlon.
  • While the athlete had never previously been clipped by a runner or run into from behind during an event, she accepted it was a risk by her own admission.
  • We have previously had para-athletes and able-bodied athletes compete together without incident.
  • The athlete has exaggerated her brain injury with the deliberate intention of inflating her claim.
  • I was not aware the course would be occupied by para-athletes and able-bodied athletes simultaneously.
  • There were barriers separating the runners from the cyclists. However, there was nothing to separate the para-athletes in wheelchairs from the able-bodied athletes competing in the event.
  • The point where the incident occurred was not wide enough to accommodate both groups of athletes.
  • Para-athletes racing in wheelchairs can reach speeds of up to 35 kph, which is significantly faster than able-bodied athletes. The organiser should have been aware of the risk of a collision between the able-bodied athletes and para-athletes in wheelchairs.
  • Its failure to address this risk is a breach of its duty of care to competitors in the event.
  • I don't dispute that triathlons are inclusive events where athletes of various abilities are invited to compete. However, this does not mitigate the legal responsibility of the event organiser.
  • I undertook a three-month PTSD course, never returned to work, have been bankrupted, have the care of my two children and had to move back in with the husband I have separated from because I couldn't pay the rent. To argue that I exaggerated my brain injury in an elaborate ruse to succeed in this litigation is absurd.

So, which case won?

Cast your judgment below to find out

Phil Griffin
Public liability and compensation claims
Stacks Law Firm

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.