The failure of exercising appropriate and reasonable duty will lead to liabilities in tort law of negligence. There are several necessary elements to be established to form the liabilities in tort law: duty of care, breach of duty, factual causation, remoteness, contributory negligence, damages.
1. The reasonable foreseeability test applied in Australia to test the duty of care (Wicks v State Rail Authority of New South Wales  HCA 22).
2. The breach of duty element requires the defendant to act below the standard of care (Vairy v Wyong Shire Council(2005) 223 CLR 422).
3. The factual causation element requires the defendant’s behavior actually causes the plaintiff’s injury. The “But for” test and common sense test applied (Haber v Walker  VR 339).
4. The damages will not be recovered if the negligent act is too remote to the damages (Wagon Mound No 1  AC 388).
5. If the plaintiff has negligence to his own injuries, then the liability to the defendant might be reduced (Froom v Butcher  1 QB 286).
6. The plaintiff must prove the loss in order to apply for compensation (Todorovic v Waller (1981) 150 CLR 402, 412).
First, VCC has the duty as it was responsible for the lake with the purpose of recreation. It is reasonably foreseeable for VCC to realize someone might be skilling and injury in the lake due to the lack was not always deep. Second, VCC acted below the standard care, while a reasonable person in this circumstance is likely to make more signs to identify the deep area and the shallow area. Third, there was a link between VCC’s action and the injury. But for the VCC’s negligence of the sign, the plaintiff would not get injury. Forth, the negligence is not too remote to the injury. Fifth, the plaintiff has own negligence in deciding to ski in the lake as he was inexperienced and not try to know about the lake. Hence, the liability of VCC can be reduced. Finally, the plaintiff suffered injuries to the spine, which leaded to medicine and other loss.