Beardmore v Franklins Management Services Pty Ltd

Case [2002] QCA 60

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Beardmore v Franklins P/L [2002] QCA 60

PARTIES:

JULIE BEARDMORE
(plaintiff/respondent)
v

FRANKLINS MANAGEMENT SERVICES PTY LTD
ACN 000 052 077
(defendant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 4953 of 2001
DC No 698 of 1999

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

19 March 2002

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

13 February 2002

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, McPherson JA, Ambrose J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court; McMurdo P and Ambrose J concurring as to the orders made, McPherson JA dissenting

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed with costs to be assessed

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL –  APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURY OR DEATH CASES –  where District Court action – where damages awarded within Magistrates Court jurisdiction – where costs awarded on lower District Court Scale – where no difference in Magistrates Court Scale of fees between indemnity and standard costs – whether Judge had discretion to award costs on District Court Scale – whether Cameron v Nominal Defendant was wrongly decided

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – DUTY OF CARE – REASONABLE FORESEEABILITY OF DAMAGE – PARTICULAR CASES – DUTY OF OCCUPIERS – action for damages for personal injury – where shopper injured in supermarket aisle by well-laden shopping trolley being pushed by child – where child’s parent not joined as defendant in the action – where child had been pushing trolley quickly up and down aisle and riding on it while making “racing car” noises – where child had been “acting uncontrollably” for half to three quarters of an hour prior to injuring the plaintiff – where parent apparently not exercising reasonable control over child’s behaviour – where child had previously bumped into older lady with trolley – whether supermarket staff knew or ought to have known of child’s behaviour – whether supermarket staff had duty to act where child accompanied by parent – whether duty breached – whether injury reasonably foreseeable

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – DUTY OF CARE – SPECIAL RELATIONSHIPS AND DUTIES – OCCUPIERS

District Court Act 1967 (Qld), s 69(3), s 118(3)
Occupiers Liability Act 1957 (Eng), s 2(1), s 2(3)
Supreme Court Act 1995 (Qld), s 241, s 242, s 253
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (Qld), r 360, r 361, r 698, r 704, sch 2, sch 3

Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna (1986-1987) 162 CLR 479, considered
Cameron v Nominal Defendant [2000] QCA 137, Appeal No 11527 of 1999, 18 April 2000, considered
Carmarthenshire County Council v Lewis [1955] AC 549, considered
David Jones (Canberra) Pty Ltd  v Stone (1970) 123 CLR 185, considered
Hackshaw v Shaw (1984) 155 CLR 614, considered
Indermaur v Dames (1866) LR 1 CP 274, considered
Re: Golden Casket Art Union Office [1995] 2 QdR 346, considered
The Wagon Mound (No 2); Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co Pty & anor [1967] 1 AC 617, considered
Wormald…

Continue reading Beardmore v Franklins Management Services Pty Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Beardmore v Franklins Management Services Pty Ltd [2002] QCA 60
Case
[2002] QCA 60
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Beardmore v Franklins Management Services Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, a supermarket shopper, sued the defendant, a supermarket operator, seeking damages for injuries sustained when a child pushed a loaded shopping trolley into them. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was negligent in failing to prevent the child from causing harm. The District Court awarded the plaintiff damages within the Magistrates Court jurisdiction, and costs were assessed on the lower District Court Scale. The plaintiff appealed, arguing that the damages were inadequate, the costs were incorrectly awarded, and the decision in Cameron v Nominal Defendant was misapplied.

The central issues in the appeal were whether the District Court judge had discretion to award costs on the District Court Scale, given that the damages awarded fell within the Magistrates Court jurisdiction. Additionally, the appeal questioned whether the Cameron v Nominal Defendant case was wrongly decided, particularly regarding the application of costs in personal injury cases. The court also considered whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff under the circumstances and whether this duty was breached, leading to the foreseeable injury.

The Court of Appeal examined the principles of costs in personal injury cases, confirming that the District Court judge does have the discretion to award costs on the District Court Scale if the damages awarded are within the Magistrates Court jurisdiction. The court further clarified that the decision in Cameron v Nominal Defendant was correctly applied. Regarding the negligence claim, the court found that the supermarket operator did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff under the circumstances. The child’s actions were deemed unforeseeable, and there was no reasonable basis for the supermarket staff to intervene, especially given that the child was accompanied by a parent who seemingly was not exercising reasonable control.

Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, and the plaintiff's costs were to be assessed. The reasoning provided by the court established that the trial judge's discretion in awarding costs and the principles of duty of care and reasonable foreseeability were correctly applied in the District Court's judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed with costs to be assessed

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.