Barker v Rand Transport (1986)P/L - [2013] QDC 172

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Barker v Rand Transport (1986)P/L [2013] QDC 172

PARTIES:

GARY BARKER
(plaintiff)

v

RAND TRANSPORT (1986) PTY LTD
ACN 009 180 983
(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BD37/12

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

31 July 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

22, 23 and 24 July 2013

JUDGE:

Andrews SC DCJ

ORDER:

Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $137,469.37
Costs reserved

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – VICARIOUS LIABILITY – where negligent worker supplied by labour hire business to defendant – whether defendant vicariously liable

TORTS – where occupier of premises had rule against forklifts entering trucks with drivers inside – where forklift driver completed defendant’s safety course – where defendant observed no breach of rule by forklift driver – where forklift driver entered truck injuring plaintiff – whether occupier breached duty to take reasonable precautions for the safety of the plaintiff

DAMAGES – whether plaintiff’s losses were caused independently of injuries sustained on defendant’s premises

COUNSEL:

de Plater for the plaintiff

de Jersey for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Schultz Toomey O’Brien Lawyers for the plaintiff

Sparke Helmore for the defendant

Issues

The plaintiff was at the defendant’s cold storage facility attending to cargo in the back of his truck when a forklift entered the back of the truck and knocked a metal bar out of place. The bar struck and injured the plaintiff. It was unsafe practice to drive a forklift inside the rear of a truck if someone was inside and unskilful driving to strike the metal bar. The forklift driver’s conduct was not defended. He was negligent. The plaintiff has not proceeded against the forklift driver or against the labour hire business which supplied the forklift driver to the defendant. The plaintiff proceeds against the defendant at whose premises the forklift driver was driving. Is the defendant vicariously liable for the forklift driver’s negligence where the labour hire entity supplied him? If the defendant is not vicariously liable for the negligent forklift driver, did the defendant independently breach its duty to take reasonable precautions for the safety of the plaintiff. The defendant had strategies in place to prevent forklifts and truck drivers being inside trucks together, a rule against forklifts entering the back of trucks when truck drivers were inside and strategies to bring the rule to the attention of forklift drivers, whether employees or not. Quantum of damage is also in issue in circumstances where the Civil Liability Act 2003 has no application. There is an issue about which of the plaintiff’s symptoms have been caused by the incident.

Facts

The plaintiff was born on 21 October 1951. He was 58 years and nine months of age when he was injured on 23 July 2010 by the metal bar. He was 62 years and nine months of age at the date of trial.

The plaintiff attended school in England to the age of 15, then became a truck driver’s mate and subsequently…

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 Barker v Rand Transport (1986)P/L

Details

AGLC: Barker v Rand Transport (1986)P/L [2013] QDC 172
Case: [2013] QDC 172
Decision Date: 31 July 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Barker v Rand Transport (1986)P/L involved a dispute where the plaintiff alleged injuries sustained due to the negligence of a forklift driver supplied by Rand Transport to Barker. The plaintiff claimed that the injuries occurred when the forklift driver entered a truck where the plaintiff was seated, despite a rule prohibiting such actions. The case was heard in the court of first instance.

The primary legal issues addressed by the court were whether Rand Transport was vicariously liable for the actions of the negligent worker and whether Barker, as the occupier of the premises, had breached their duty to ensure the safety of the plaintiff. Furthermore, the court had to determine if the plaintiff's losses were caused independently of the injuries sustained on Barker's premises.

The court found that Rand Transport was indeed vicariously liable for the actions of their employee, as the negligent forklift driver was acting within the scope of their employment. Additionally, the court held that Barker was liable for breaching their duty of care. The court determined that Barker, as the occupier, had failed to enforce their safety rules effectively and could have reasonably foreseen the risk of injury if the rule was breached. Consequently, the court ruled that Barker was liable for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff. Regarding the plaintiff's losses, the court found that they were not caused independently of the injuries on Barker's premises.

The court ordered that Barker pay the plaintiff $137,469.37 in damages, with costs reserved for a later determination. This judgment underscores the importance of enforcing safety rules on premises and the potential liability of occupiers and labour hire companies for breaches of duty.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $137,469.37

Costs reserved

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:	Barker v Rand Transport (1986)P/L [2013] QDC 172
PARTIES:	GARY BARKER (plaintiff) v RAND TRANSPORT (1986) PTY LTD ACN 009 180 983 (defendant)
FILE NO/S:	BD37/12
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:	31 July 2013
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	22, 23 and 24 July 2013
JUDGE:	Andrews SC DCJ
ORDER:	Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $137,469.37 Costs reserved
CATCHWORDS:	TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – VICARIOUS LIABILITY – where negligent worker supplied by labour hire business to defendant – whether defendant vicariously liable TORTS – where occupier of premises had rule against forklifts entering trucks with drivers inside – where forklift driver completed defendant’s safety course – where defendant observed no breach of rule by forklift driver – where forklift driver entered truck injuring plaintiff – whether occupier breached duty to take reasonable precautions for the safety of the plaintiff DAMAGES – whether plaintiff’s losses were caused independently of injuries sustained on defendant’s premises
COUNSEL:	de Plater for the plaintiff de Jersey for the defendant
SOLICITORS:	Schultz Toomey O’Brien Lawyers for the plaintiff Sparke Helmore for the defendant