Dreamworld faces a barrage of lawsuits as inquiries into tragedy begin

SIGNS warning the public to ride at their own risk could offer Dreamworld little protection from lawsuits if it was negligent in maintaining its Thunder River Rapids rise, lawyers say.

Dreamworld.

• Fatal ride closed earlier in the day
• Dreamworld deaths: Four dead in ride tragedy
• Premier: ‘A horrific, horrific scene’
• Conveyor belt system shut down other rides

SIGNS warning the public to ride at their own risk could offer Dreamworld little legal protection if it was negligent in maintaining its Thunder River Rapids ride, lawyers say.

The theme park faces a Workplace Health and Safety investigation, inquests and ­potential civil lawsuits from the families of those killed and from those injured.

Alison Barrett, of Maurice Blackburn Lawyers, said that Dreamworld could face the highest workplace health and safety offence of reckless ­endangerment if it was shown that people were put at risk of death or injury.

Ms Barrett said the maximum penalty for a corporation was $3 million and any individual could face a fine of up to $600,000 or five years in jail.

“When accidents like this occur, generally negligence is revealed, and sometimes gross negligence,” Ms Barrett said.

“What often is seen is a poor safety culture and poor behaviour in relation to safety.

“A tragedy like this isn’t an act of God, it’s not a freak accident. They tend to occur ­because of a disregard of someone’s safety.”

The potential costs come as shares in Dreamworld’s owner, Ardent Leisure, closed sharply lower after the tragedy. Shares in the entertainment group dropped 11 per cent in the 10 minutes before the market closed for the day at 4pm (Sydney time), wiping $140 million from the company’s value. They closed 7.8 per cent down on the day.

Experts said customers may wait years before risking a visit to the theme park, with that threat to the business weighing heavily on investor sentiment.

Brand expert Richard Sauerman said people would think twice about going there now.

Lawyer Mark O’Connor, of Bennett and Philp, said the company could face large lawsuits. Signs saying something like “ride at your own risk” referred to risks that would normally be anticipated on that type of ride, rather than the type of incident that occurred yesterday, he said.

“You would think because they were dealing with people’s lives, they would want to make sure it stopped or closed down the ride,” Mr O’Connor said. “If there are problems they haven’t fixed and they’ve allowed the ride to continue to operate, they have got some deep problems legally with civil suits and the potential for prosecution.”

Any financially dependent relatives of those killed could make significant claims for loss of dependency and loss of fin­ancial support and services.

Those injured could claim for permanent impairment, pain and suffering.

“No amount of money or fines on companies can replace loved ones or make up for what families and individuals involved have been through,” Ms Barrett said. “People go to theme parks to have fun, and not to be killed or witness ­people being killed.”