Appo v Stanley

Case [2010] QSC 383


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Appo v Stanley & Anor [2010] QSC 383

PARTIES:

BRENDON WAYNE APPO
(plaintiff)
v
JUSTIN STANLEY
(first defendant)
DAVID SIMMONS
(second defendant)

FILE NO/S:

SC No 12 of 2007

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Mackay

DELIVERED ON:

13 October 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Rockhampton

HEARING DATE:

22, 23, 24 September 2010

JUDGE:

McMeekin J

ORDER:

Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendants in the sum of $945,895.02.

CATCHWORDS:

DAMAGES – MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where plaintiff worked as a jockey and suffered injury to discs in his cervical spine in a fall during a race – where plaintiff alleged that the fall was caused by the negligent riding of the respondents – where both liability and quantum in issue – where the respondents owed a duty to take reasonable care to avoid creating a foreseeable risk of injury to other riders – whether the respondents breached essential safety rules – whether the respondents breached their duty to take reasonable care – whether the restrictions on damages imposed by the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) apply to the claim

Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld), s 5
Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld),
s 11, s 32(1)

Agar v Hyde (2000) 201 CLR 552
Flanders v Small [2000] QDC 461
Hill v Workcover Queensland [2006] 1 Qd R 232; [2005] QSC 257
Kliese v Pelling [1998] QSC 112
Newberry v Suncorp Metway Insurance Limited [2006] 1 Qd R 519; [2006] QCA 48
Rootes v Shelton
(1967) 116 CLR 383
Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 16

COUNSEL:

G. Crow, with B. Hartigan, for the plaintiff
M. Grant-Taylor SC, with T. Hubbard, for the defendants

SOLICITORS:

Macrossan & Amiet for the plaintiff
Moray & Agnew for the defendants

  1. EEKIN J:  McMThe plaintiff, Brendon Wayne Appo, suffered injuries to discs in his cervical spine that brought his career as a professional jockey, which he had pursued for some 18 years, to an end. This case concerns the incident in which he was injured.

  1. That incident occurred in the course of the first race at Ooralea Racecourse, Mackay, on 10 February 2004.  Mr Appo was thrown from his mount “Lough Key”.  Mr Appo says that the fall was caused by the negligent riding of two fellow jockeys in the race, David Simmons riding “Red Bay” and Justin Stanley riding “Kelso Reef”.

  1. Mr Appo claims damages for personal injuries suffered in that fall. Both liability and quantum of damages are in issue.

LIABILITY

  1. It is not in issue that as the horses approached the 600m mark – that is with 600m left to run – Lough Key was positioned between Red Bay and Kelso Reef, with Kelso Reef leading on the inside, Red Bay second and on the outside, and Lough Key third. Lough Key was about a three-quarter length behind Kelso Reef. Nor is it…

Continue reading Appo v Stanley

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Appo v Stanley [2010] QSC 383
Case
[2010] QSC 383
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Appo v Stanley, the plaintiff, a jockey, alleged that he suffered injury to the discs in his cervical spine due to a fall during a horse race, which he attributed to the negligent riding of the defendants. The case came before the court to determine both liability and quantum. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants breached their duty of care by not adhering to essential safety rules, thereby creating a foreseeable risk of injury to other riders. The court had to decide whether the defendants' actions constituted a breach of this duty and if the statutory restrictions on damages in the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) applied to the claim.

The court examined the nature of the duty owed by jockeys to each other, considering the established principle that jockeys must exercise reasonable care to avoid endangering fellow participants. It was found that the defendants had indeed breached this duty, leading to the plaintiff's injuries. Regarding the quantum of damages, the court considered the plaintiff's economic losses, pain and suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life. The statutory restrictions on damages were also scrutinized to determine their applicability to the case. Ultimately, the court concluded that these restrictions did not bar the plaintiff's claim for general damages.

The court awarded the plaintiff $945,895.02 in damages. This sum reflected the economic losses, non-economic damages, and loss of enjoyment of life, taking into account the statutory caps on damages for pain and suffering. The court's decision underscores the importance of adherence to safety rules in high-risk activities and the potential consequences of failing to do so.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendants in the sum of $945,895.02.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.