Bamford v Haggett - [2004] QSC 453

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Bamford v Haggett [2004] QSC 453

PARTIES:

PETER JOHN BAMFORD
(plaintiff)
v
ROBERT CHARLES HAGGETT
(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

SC No 4647 of 2004

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

14 December 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

11,12 and 13 October 2004

JUDGE:

White J

ORDER:

Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $254,050.85

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – DUTY OF CARE – REASONABLE FORSEEABILITY OF DAMAGE – GENERALLY – where the plaintiff sustained personal injury when he fell from a ladder whilst helping the defendant to paint a veranda at the defendant’s - whether a duty of care arose between the plaintiff and the defendant – defendant devising a system of work – whether the defendant owed a duty to take reasonable care to avoid foreseeable risk of injury to the plaintiff

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE – whether the plaintiff should have checked the position of the ladder before climbing the ladder

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – DAMAGE – GENERAL – whether the plaintiff suffers from epilepsy brought about by his fall from the veranda - whether the plaintiff’s continuing symptoms are attributable only to a somatoform (conversion) disorder

Crooks v Fitzgerald [2002] QCA 307, cited
Jones v Bartlett (2000) 205 CLR 166, cited
Northern Sandblasting Pty Ltd v Harris (1997) 188 CLR 313, considered
Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 16, applied

COUNSEL:

R A I Myers for the plaintiff

G D O’Sullivan with S B Whiten for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Shine Roche McGowan for the plaintiff

Stewarts Lawyers for the defendant

The plaintiff sustained personal injury when he fell from a ladder on Easter Saturday, 30 March 2002 whilst helping his friend, the defendant, to paint a veranda at his home at Lowood.

Both liability and quantum are in issue. Liability will largely be decided by the preference of one account of what occurred over the other. This will also dictate whether there should be any apportionment. There are two principle questions for resolution about quantum, namely whether the plaintiff has epilepsy as a consequence of any head injury sustained in the fall or whether his continuing symptoms are attributable only to a somatoform (conversion) disorder. The second concerns the plaintiff’s likely work history had he not been injured.

Background

The plaintiff is a 37-year-old married man with two children aged 14 and 16 years. He was unemployed at the time of the fall and his most recent employment as at February/March 2002 was as a roofer. He had known the defendant for about 20 years after the defendant had moved into the house next door to that of the plaintiff and his parents. The plaintiff regarded the defendant as a good friend. The men kept in touch and, in due course, they both married. After the defendant moved to Lowood in about 1999 the two families saw more of each other than…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Bamford v Haggett

Details

AGLC: Bamford v Haggett [2004] QSC 453
Case: [2004] QSC 453
Decision Date: 14 December 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Bamford v Haggett involved a plaintiff who sustained personal injury while assisting the defendant in painting a veranda at the defendant's property. The plaintiff fell from a ladder during this activity, leading to a claim for damages against the defendant. The central issue in this case was whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, and if so, whether this duty was breached, resulting in the plaintiff's injuries.

The court had to determine if a duty of care existed between the plaintiff and the defendant, particularly in the context of the defendant devising a system of work. The central legal issue was whether the defendant owed a duty to take reasonable care to avoid a foreseeable risk of injury to the plaintiff. Additionally, the court considered whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent by not checking the position of the ladder before climbing it. The final determination involved assessing the nature and extent of the plaintiff's injuries, including whether his ongoing symptoms, such as those related to epilepsy, were attributable to his fall from the veranda or a somatoform (conversion) disorder.

The court found that the defendant did owe a duty of care to the plaintiff, as the risk of injury was reasonably foreseeable. The court determined that the defendant breached this duty by not ensuring that the ladder was properly positioned and stable, which directly contributed to the plaintiff's fall. Furthermore, while the plaintiff's contributory negligence was acknowledged, it was not considered to be a significant factor in the causation of the injuries. The court also concluded that the plaintiff's symptoms were attributable to the fall rather than a somatoform disorder, thereby justifying a substantial award of damages.

In conclusion, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, awarding damages of $254,050.85 against the defendant. This decision underscores the importance of establishing and maintaining a duty of care in work-related activities, particularly when there is a foreseeable risk of injury to others involved in the task.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $254,050.85

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.

CITATION:	Bamford v Haggett [2004] QSC 453
PARTIES:	PETER JOHN BAMFORD (plaintiff) v ROBERT CHARLES HAGGETT (defendant)
FILE NO/S:	SC No 4647 of 2004
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	14 December 2004
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	11,12 and 13 October 2004
JUDGE:	White J
ORDER:	Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $254,050.85
CATCHWORDS:	TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – DUTY OF CARE – REASONABLE FORSEEABILITY OF DAMAGE – GENERALLY – where the plaintiff sustained personal injury when he fell from a ladder whilst helping the defendant to paint a veranda at the defendant’s - whether a duty of care arose between the plaintiff and the defendant – defendant devising a system of work – whether the defendant owed a duty to take reasonable care to avoid foreseeable risk of injury to the plaintiff TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE – whether the plaintiff should have checked the position of the ladder before climbing the ladder TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – DAMAGE – GENERAL – whether the plaintiff suffers from epilepsy brought about by his fall from the veranda - whether the plaintiff’s continuing symptoms are attributable only to a somatoform (conversion) disorder Crooks v Fitzgerald [2002] QCA 307, cited Jones v Bartlett (2000) 205 CLR 166, cited Northern Sandblasting Pty Ltd v Harris (1997) 188 CLR 313, considered Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 16, applied
COUNSEL:	R A I Myers for the plaintiff G D O’Sullivan with S B Whiten for the defendant
SOLICITORS:	Shine Roche McGowan for the plaintiff Stewarts Lawyers for the defendant