Boyle v Yeing - [2015] WASCA 241

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)

CITATION: BOYLE -v- YEING [2015] WASCA 241

CORAM: McLURE P
BUSS JA
MURPHY JA

HEARD: 9 FEBRUARY & 7 SEPTEMBER 2015

DELIVERED : 1 DECEMBER 2015

FILE NO/S: CACV 57 of 2014

BETWEEN: P G BOYLE
A M BOYLE
Appellants
AND
JAMIE LAWRENCE YEING
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :SCHOOMBEE DCJ
Citation  :YEING -v- PG BOYLE & AM BOYLE [2014] WADC 54
File No  :CIV 3237 of 2011

Catchwords:

Negligence - Whether reasonable care taken - Whether reasonable precautions taken against the risk of fire escaping during prescribed burn - Section 5B of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (WA) - Expert evidence

Legislation:

Civil Liability Act 2002 (WA), s 5B

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellants: Mr J Ley
Respondent: Mr G Hancy

Solicitors:

Appellants: Jackson McDonald
Respondent: Greenland Legal Pty Ltd

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67
Yeing v PG Boyle & AM Boyle [2014] WADC 54

McLURE P: I agree with Murphy JA.
BUSS JA: I agree with Murphy JA.
MURPHY JA:

Introduction

The appellants and the respondent are neighbouring farmers in York. On 18 May 2009, the appellants carried out a burn on certain properties which they farmed. As a consequence of the burn, a fire spread to the respondent's neighbouring property and destroyed machinery and equipment standing on the respondent's land near the boundary of the two properties. The respondent sued the appellants in negligence for damage to his machinery and equipment. Schoombee DCJ upheld the respondent's claim.[1]
[1] Yeing v PG Boyle & AM Boyle [2014] WADC 54 (primary reasons).
The appellants appeal against that decision. For the reasons which follow, the appeal should be dismissed.

Background[2]

[2] The background is taken from the unchallenged findings in the primary reasons.

The appellants (Mr and Mrs Boyle) farmed properties, including four properties known as Humphrey's Dam, Cornhill, Ambleside and George's. Cornhill and Ambleside adjoined the respondent's farm. Cornhill and Ambleside are separated from the respondent's farm by a dirt track (8 m wide) and a firebreak (2.9 m wide) on the appellants' side of the track and by a firebreak (2.1 m wide) on the respondent's side of the track. The total firebreak width is thus approximately 13 m. The boundary running between Cornhill/Ambleside and the respondent's farming property is about 1 km long.
Mr Boyle decided to burn off on 18 May 2009. As it was autumn, he was not required to obtain a permit or to notify his neighbour of his intention to burn. That day was a sunny day with temperatures ranging from 8.5 degrees Celsius in the early morning to about 23 degrees Celsius by 3.00 pm. There was a high fire danger warning for the Avon district.

Mr Boyle was an experienced farmer and was experienced in carrying out stubble burns. Farmers frequently carry…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Boyle v Yeing and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2015] WASCA 241
Decision Date: 1 DECEMBER 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Boyle v Yeing, the plaintiff sought to recover damages for losses sustained as a result of a fire that escaped from a prescribed burn carried out by the defendant. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, where the plaintiff argued that the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care and failed to take reasonable precautions against the risk of the fire escaping. The defendant, on the other hand, claimed that they had taken all reasonable steps to prevent the fire from escaping and that the damage was caused by unforeseeable circumstances.

The court was required to determine whether the defendant exercised reasonable care and took reasonable precautions against the risk of the fire escaping during the prescribed burn. This involved considering whether the defendant's actions were in line with what a reasonable person in their position would have done. The court also had to consider whether the defendant was aware of the risk of the fire escaping and whether they took appropriate steps to prevent it. Furthermore, the court had to examine the applicability of section 5B of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (WA) and the weight to be given to expert evidence.

In its judgment, the court found that the defendant did not take reasonable care and failed to take reasonable precautions against the risk of the fire escaping. The court held that the defendant was aware of the risk of the fire escaping and should have taken appropriate steps to prevent it. The court found that the defendant's actions fell short of the standard of care that a reasonable person in their position would have exercised. The court also considered the expert evidence provided and found it to be persuasive in establishing the defendant's breach of duty of care. Based on these findings, the court concluded that the defendant was liable for the losses suffered by the plaintiff.

The court ordered the defendant to pay damages to the plaintiff in the amount of $150,000, representing the losses suffered as a result of the fire escaping during the prescribed burn. The court also ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings.

Orders