Brannock v Jetstar Airways Pty Ltd

In the case of Brannock v Jetstar Airways Pty Ltd, the respondent, Mr Brannock, alleged that he was injured while attempting to board a domestic flight operated by Jetstar Airways. Mr Brannock was directed by flight staff to descend stairs to the tarmac to board the aircraft. However, he was unable to locate the exit door and fell down the stairs, sustaining injuries. Mr Brannock sought damages against Jetstar Airways, the appellant, claiming that the carrier was liable for his injuries under s 28 of the Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act 1959 (Cth). The appellant applied for summary judgment, which was refused. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The legal issues before the court were whether there was an "accident" within the meaning of s 28 of the Act and whether the event was an unexpected or unusual event or happening external to Mr Brannock. The court considered the construction of s 28 and whether the event was an accident or an inherent risk of air travel. The court also considered whether the appellant was negligent in directing Mr Brannock to descend the stairs and whether the appellant had taken reasonable care to ensure Mr Brannock's safety.

The court held that the event was not an accident within the meaning of s 28 of the Act. The court found that the event was an inherent risk of air travel and not an unexpected or unusual event or happening external to Mr Brannock. The court held that the appellant had taken reasonable care to ensure Mr Brannock's safety and that there was no negligence on the part of the appellant. The court also held that the respondent's claim was statute-barred as it was not brought within the requisite time period.

The court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the primary judge. The court ordered that judgment be entered for the appellant against the respondent and that the respondent pay the appellant's costs of and incidental to the appeal and the application for summary judgment, unless there were submissions to the contrary. The court granted the appellant's application for an extension of time and the application for leave to appeal.