In January 2019, Susan attends a theme park called CoolWorld (CW) in Brisbane with her family. Susan goes on a roller-coaster ride and unfortunately suffers devastating physical injuries to her body and significant psychiatric harm. Susan wants to sue CW for $1,500,000. She brings an action in negligence against CW, alleging that CW failed to check for mechanical faults in its rides every day as recommended by Queensland industry standards (it is standard practice and is required by law in the theme park industry, for operators to check for mechanical faults every day).

The matter is heard at first instance and then appealed. Eventually, after Special Leave is granted, the case proceeds to the High Court of Australia. The High Court finds CW liable, awarding Susan $1,150,000 in damages. In the judgment, it is stated that while CW failed to check for mechanical faults in accordance with industry standards, the fact that CW checked for such faults once a week justified the $350,000 reduction in damages. Furthermore, it was noted that if CW had never checked for faults, the full amount of $1,500,000 in damages would have been awarded.

In August 2019, a similar matter is heard in which Daniel attended a theme park called ParkViews (PV) and was injured on a ride due to an identical mechanical fault. Subsequent investigations reveal that PV failed to check for mechanical faults at all. Daniel wishes to sue PV for $500,000.

Discuss the Court in which Susan's and Daniels matters would have initially been heard. Also discuss what effect the High Courts comments in Susan's case would have on Daniel's case against PV.