Breach Of Duty Of Care

Dear Mr. Thierry

I have read your letter about the incidents involving Free Running Australia. In my professional opinion, I believe you have a substantial case against this company and also, Sydney city council. Below I have outlined my main findings:

The parties you will be suing are Free Running Australia and Sydney City Council. This will appear formally on court notices like the following: Thierry misstatements v Free Running Australia and Thierry v Sydney City council. The main question (that if proved correct will result in action against these two parties) is

1) was Free Running Australia and Sydney City Council negligent in any manner, resulting in your damages?

Below are the specific breaches that have occurred and how they related to what you will have to prove in order to succeed. The three main things you will have to prove to the magistrate are that the defendants:

- Owed you a duty of care

- Breached that duty of care

- Resulted in damages.

In proving that Free Running Australia and Sydney City Council owed you a duty of care and they breached that duty of care, the main defense you will face is that there is inherent risk in your activity. They will state that you assessed the risk and willingly partook in this activity. This is outlined in the Civil Liability Act and there has also been an incident of this appearing in the court system recently . Although aspects of this may be true, the entirety of it is not. If the expert of Free Running Australia said that the differences between parkour and free running were not important and that you had nothing to worry about, then he may be liable for making a negligent misstatement . Further more, his direct quote of saying “Free running always puts the safety of free runners before making the activity look spectacular”, directly contradicts the part of the agreement you signed that stated that the participants had to “make free running look spectacular by performing somersaults when passing all obstacles.” This reinforces the previous misstatement outlined and also shows that Free Running Australia was negligent and does not put the safety of its participants before the spectacle.

It has come to my attention that Sydney City Council also owed you a duty of care and also breached this duty of care in making sure that their safety rails could support, as a minimum, the weight of an average male. The fact that when you actually needed this rail, it failed to support you, support this claim. In my opinion Sydney City Council have ignored the section in the Civil Liability Act that states the appropriate precaution should be exercised when a foreseeable risk is identified . Also the fact that the council was happy to have the buildings used in the competition because of tourism advantages suggest they were not wholly concerned of participant’s safety.

The third obstacle is where I am particularly concerned that Free Running Australia breached their duty of care. They encouraged jumpers to do summersaults knowing that this part of the course was especially small and very restricted. There is a case that deals with this issue of seriousness of consequences (and having the appropriate level of precautions) and should help our argument. This also breaches the terms outlined in the Civil Liability Act .

The next tort I have identified is to do with the way in which you were rescued. I am at a lost as to why Free Running Australia did not have an authorized rescue team on site. You were only rescued by an “official”