Record whether a risk meets the Queensland obvious-risk description
MaintainedLast reviewed
Key facts
- Human involvement
- YellowClose supervision
- How AI is used
- From the description of the risk and of the person who suffered harm, build a description table against section 13. Do not decide whether the risk was obvious, and do not decide whether a duty to warn was owed.
- What the lawyer must review
- Decide whether the risk would have been obvious to a reasonable person in that person's position
- Apply sections 14 and 15 only after that decision, including the exceptions to the warning rule
- Check section 5 before using this division on a work injury
- The lawyer writes any pleading or advice
Rules that apply
The document starts from the task name. Change it if this piece of work is different.
The work product
Forum. Queensland claim to which Civil Liability Act 2003, chapter 2, part 1, division 3 applies
Produce. A description table of the risk against section 13, with the conclusion left blank.
Have ready. The lawyer's description of the risk; The position of the person who suffered harm; Whether a warning, a request for advice, or a professional service is in issue.
Example of the limit. Illustrative example: The draft describes a cracked frame that was not visible. The lawyer uses section 13(5) and does not treat the risk as obvious merely because go-carts are dangerous.
Stop and hand it back when
- The facts of the risk are not yet instructed.
- The claim may be outside the Act under section 5.
Sources for this task were checked on 2026-10-23.
Who does what
| Role | What they do |
|---|---|
| Assistance | From the description of the risk and of the person who suffered harm, build a description table against section 13. Do not decide whether the risk was obvious, and do not decide whether a duty to warn was owed. |
| Lawyer | Set the scope, supervise the work closely, verify every part relied on, resolve omissions and exceptions, and approve the exact output. |
Checklist
- Section 13(1) asks whether the risk would have been obvious to a reasonable person in the position of the person who suffered harm. A low probability, and a risk that is not prominent, can still be obvious.
- Section 13(5) says a risk from a thing is not obvious if it comes from a failure to operate, maintain, replace, prepare or care for the thing, unless that failure itself is obvious.
- Section 14 is a presumption of awareness if voluntary assumption of risk is raised. Section 15 says there is no proactive duty to warn of an obvious risk, with exceptions where advice was requested, a written law requires a warning, or a professional other than a doctor is providing a professional service.
- Check section 5. This division does not decide liability for a work injury or a dust-related condition to which that section applies.
Sources
- Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) section 13 · 2026-10-23
- Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) section 14 · 2026-10-23
- Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) section 15 · 2026-10-23
- Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) section 5 · 2026-10-23
Section 15(3) says that section 15(2) does not give rise to a presumption of a duty to warn in the exception cases. The note to section 15 points to section 21 for a doctor's duty to warn. That section was not the test used here.
The tool records the facts the lawyer supplies. It does not find that a risk was obvious.
If the table is later used in a submission, Supreme Court Practice Direction 5 of 2025 or District Court Practice Direction 12 of 2025 requires a named practitioner to verify the references.