Brown v Holzberger & AAI Limited - [2017] QSC 54

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Brown v Holzberger & AAI Limited [2017] QSC 54

PARTIES:

ASHLEY DAVID BROWN
(plaintiff)

v

ROBERT WILLIAM HOLZBERGER
(first defendant)

And

AAI LIMITED ABN 48 005 297 807 TRADING AS SUNCORP INSURANCE
(second defendant)

FILE NO/S:

S5 of 2016

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland at Bundaberg

DELIVERED ON:

12 April 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Rockhampton

HEARING DATE:

20, 21, 22, 23 and 31 March 2017

JUDGE:

McMeekin J

ORDER:

Judgment for the second defendant

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – ROAD ACCIDENT – LIABILITY OF DRIVERS OF VEHICLES – INTERSECTIONS AND JUNCTIONS – where plaintiff’s motorcycle collided with defendant’s car causing plaintiff to suffer serious injuries resulting in below knee amputation – where plaintiff alleges defendant’s negligence caused the accident – whether plaintiff has discharged onus of demonstrating that the accident occurred because of negligence on the part of the first defendant.

DAMAGES – MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – MULTIPLE INJURIES – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – assessment of damages pursuant to the Civil Liability Act (2003) –– where the assessment of general damages is in issue – where the assessment of past and future economic loss is in issue – where the assessment of past and future care is in issue.

Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) s 55, s 57(2), s 59, s 62

Civil Liability Regulation 2014(Qld)

AAI Limited v McQuitty [2016] QCA 326, cited

AAI Limited & Anor v Marinkovic [2017] QCA 54, cited

Adelaide Chemical and Fertilizer Co Ltd v Carlyle (1940) 64 CLR 514, cited

Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd v McCarthy [2012] QCA 312, cited

Allwood v Wilson & Anor [2011] QSC 180, applied

Ballesteros v Chidlow & Anor [2006] QCA 323, cited

CSR v Eddy (2005) 226 CLR 1, cited

Eaton v Nominal Defendant [1995] QCA 435, considered

Graham v Baker (1961) 106 CLR 340, considered

Malec v JC Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638, applied

Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission (1995) 182 CLR 1, cited

Nucifora & Another v AAI Limited [2013] QSC 338, considered

Paul v Rendell (1981) 55 ALJR 371, cited

Pollitt v The Queen (1992) 174 CLR 558, followed

Ratten v The Queen [1972] AC 378, cited

Reardon-Smith v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd [2007] QCA 211, cited

Ross v Hamilton [1997] QSC 170, cited

Shaw v Menzies & Anor [2011] QCA 197, considered

Sydney Electricity Authority v Giles (1993) NSW CCR 700, considered

The Queen v Andrews [1987] AC 281, cited

Vocisano v Vocisano (1974) 130 CLR 267, cited

Walton v The Queen (1989) 166 CLR, considered

COUNSEL:

T Matthews QC with A Williams for the plaintiff

GF Crow QC for the second defendant

SOLICITORS:

Baker O’Brien & Toll for the plaintiff

Quinlan Miller & Treston for the second defendant

McMEEKIN J: Ashley David Brown suffered serious injuries,…

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 Brown v Holzberger & AAI Limited 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: [2017] QSC 54
Decision Date: 12 April 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the plaintiff, Brown, who claimed that the accident in which he was seriously injured was caused by the negligence of the first defendant, Holzberger, who was driving a car. The plaintiff alleged that the accident resulted in a below knee amputation. The second defendant, AAI Limited, was the insurer of the first defendant and was also involved in the dispute. The plaintiff sought compensation for the injuries sustained, including past and future economic loss and care costs. The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff had established that the accident was due to the negligence of the first defendant and, if so, to assess the appropriate damages.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff had discharged the burden of proof to demonstrate that the accident was caused by the negligence of the first defendant. This involved examining the circumstances of the collision and determining whether the first defendant breached any duty of care that resulted in the plaintiff's injuries. Additionally, the court had to assess the measure of damages for the plaintiff’s injuries, including general damages, past and future economic loss, and past and future care costs. The court was required to apply the principles of the Civil Liability Act (2003) to determine the appropriate compensation for the plaintiff.

The court found that the plaintiff had not successfully demonstrated that the accident was due to the negligence of the first defendant. The evidence did not support the plaintiff's claim that the first defendant breached a duty of care, leading to the collision. Consequently, the court held that the first defendant was not liable for the accident. As a result, the plaintiff’s claims against both the first defendant and the second defendant were dismissed. The court concluded that the plaintiff had failed to discharge the onus of proof, and therefore, no damages were awarded. The judgment resulted in a complete victory for the second defendant, with no liability or damages awarded to the plaintiff.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgment for the second defendant

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:	Brown v Holzberger & AAI Limited [2017] QSC 54
PARTIES:	ASHLEY DAVID BROWN (plaintiff) v ROBERT WILLIAM HOLZBERGER (first defendant) And AAI LIMITED ABN 48 005 297 807 TRADING AS SUNCORP INSURANCE (second defendant)
FILE NO/S:	S5 of 2016
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court of Queensland at Bundaberg
DELIVERED ON:	12 April 2017
DELIVERED AT:	Rockhampton
HEARING DATE:	20, 21, 22, 23 and 31 March 2017
JUDGE:	McMeekin J
ORDER:	Judgment for the second defendant
CATCHWORDS:	TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – ROAD ACCIDENT – LIABILITY OF DRIVERS OF VEHICLES – INTERSECTIONS AND JUNCTIONS – where plaintiff’s motorcycle collided with defendant’s car causing plaintiff to suffer serious injuries resulting in below knee amputation – where plaintiff alleges defendant’s negligence caused the accident – whether plaintiff has discharged onus of demonstrating that the accident occurred because of negligence on the part of the first defendant. DAMAGES – MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT – MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – MULTIPLE INJURIES – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – assessment of damages pursuant to the Civil Liability Act (2003) –– where the assessment of general damages is in issue – where the assessment of past and future economic loss is in issue – where the assessment of past and future care is in issue. Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) s 55, s 57(2), s 59, s 62 Civil Liability Regulation 2014(Qld) AAI Limited v McQuitty [2016] QCA 326, cited AAI Limited & Anor v Marinkovic [2017] QCA 54, cited Adelaide Chemical and Fertilizer Co Ltd v Carlyle (1940) 64 CLR 514, cited Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd v McCarthy [2012] QCA 312, cited Allwood v Wilson & Anor [2011] QSC 180, applied Ballesteros v Chidlow & Anor [2006] QCA 323, cited CSR v Eddy (2005) 226 CLR 1, cited Eaton v Nominal Defendant [1995] QCA 435, considered Graham v Baker (1961) 106 CLR 340, considered Malec v JC Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638, applied Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission (1995) 182 CLR 1, cited Nucifora & Another v AAI Limited [2013] QSC 338, considered Paul v Rendell (1981) 55 ALJR 371, cited Pollitt v The Queen (1992) 174 CLR 558, followed Ratten v The Queen [1972] AC 378, cited Reardon-Smith v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd [2007] QCA 211, cited Ross v Hamilton [1997] QSC 170, cited Shaw v Menzies & Anor [2011] QCA 197, considered Sydney Electricity Authority v Giles (1993) NSW CCR 700, considered The Queen v Andrews [1987] AC 281, cited Vocisano v Vocisano (1974) 130 CLR 267, cited Walton v The Queen (1989) 166 CLR, considered
COUNSEL:	T Matthews QC with A Williams for the plaintiff GF Crow QC for the second defendant
SOLICITORS:	Baker O’Brien & Toll for the plaintiff Quinlan Miller & Treston for the second defendant