Carlile v Hegedus - [2003] QSC 323

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Carlile v Hegedus & Ors [2003] QSC 323

PARTIES:

EDGAR WILLIAM CARLILE
(plaintiff)
v
STEPHEN ISTVAN HEGEDUS
(first defendant)
GIGI GERHILD HEGEDUS
(second defendant)

FILE NO:

S9539 of 2002

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Trial

DELIVERED ON:

25 September 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

16, 17,18, 19 September 2003

JUDGE:

Muir J

ORDER:

Judgments for the defendants in the action

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE – DUTY OF CARE – Special Relationships and Duties – Employer and Employee – where the plaintiff was employed by the defendants and was involved in an accident whilst carrying out his duties as an employee – whether the cause of the accident constituted a foreseeable risk and the defendants breached their duty of care to provide a safe system of work

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 149(1)(c)
WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 (Qld), s 312(1)(b), s 312(1)(e), s 312(1)(f), s 312 (1)(h)

Dixon v Cementation Co Ltd [1960] 1 WLR 746

Hamilton v Nuroof (WA) Pty Ltd (1956) 96 CLR 18

Neill v NSW Fresh Food and Ice Pty Ltd (1963) 108 CLR 362

Nagle v Rottnest Island Authority (1993) 177 CLR 423

Plumb v State of Queensland [2000] QCA 258

Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40

COUNSEL:

The plaintiff appeared in person
M Grant-Taylor SC for the defendants

SOLICITORS:

The plaintiff appeared in person
O’Shea Corser & Wadley for the defendants

The plaintiff’s claim and the background to it

MUIR J: The plaintiff, Edgar William Carlile who was born on 19 May 1956 was injured on 24 February 1998 when, dismounting from a bobcat owned by his employers, the first and second defendants, he fell, striking his head on a large rock. At the time, the defendants were subcontractors carrying out landscaping work in the Forest Lake residential development. The plaintiff had been employed by them to operate their bobcat and the accident occurred on the second day of the plaintiff’s employment.

In a statutory declaration accompanying a notice of claim for damages dated 23 March 2001 submitted to WorkCover Queensland, the plaintiff explained that his accident occurred when he dismounted from the bobcat in order to move an electrical lead placed by employees of another contractor or subcontractor in a location which impeded his work. He stated that he had complained about the positioning of the power lead “on several occasions during the day”. In his oral evidence, it emerged that the complaints were made to persons other than the defendants. The male defendant, whose evidence I generally accept, said that he was unaware of any such complaints or that the plaintiff’s use of the bobcat was impeded by an electrical lead.

The March 2001 notice of claim identified the defendant’s negligence as “permit(ting) other persons on the development to leave a power cable on the ground where I was required to work, thereby creating a risk of injury.” The further details of negligence provided were all directed…

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 Carlile v Hegedus 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: [2003] QSC 323
Decision Date: 25 September 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Carlile v Hegedus was a case in which the plaintiff sought to recover damages from the defendants, his employers, for injuries sustained in a workplace accident. The accident occurred when the plaintiff was operating a forklift while carrying out his duties, resulting in injuries that he attributed to a breach of the defendants' duty of care. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining the liability of the employers under the tort of negligence, specifically whether the accident constituted a foreseeable risk for which the defendants had failed to take reasonable precautions.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the defendants had breached their duty of care by failing to provide a safe system of work, considering the foreseeable risks associated with the plaintiff's role. This involved assessing whether the accident was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the plaintiff's employment activities and whether the defendants had taken adequate measures to mitigate such risks. The court also considered the standard of care expected of employers under the principles of negligence and whether the defendants' actions were consistent with that standard.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the risk of accidents involving forklifts was indeed foreseeable and that the defendants had not adequately provided a safe system of work. However, the court also held that the plaintiff's own contributory negligence in operating the forklift in a manner that led to the accident significantly contributed to the outcome. The court determined that while the defendants were liable for failing to provide a safe working environment, the plaintiff's actions also played a critical role in the incident. As a result, the court apportioned liability, finding that the plaintiff's damages were reduced by his contributory negligence. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the defendants, dismissing the plaintiff's claim.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgments for the defendants in the action

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:	Carlile v Hegedus & Ors [2003] QSC 323
PARTIES:	EDGAR WILLIAM CARLILE (plaintiff) v STEPHEN ISTVAN HEGEDUS (first defendant) GIGI GERHILD HEGEDUS (second defendant)
FILE NO:	S9539 of 2002
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Trial
DELIVERED ON:	25 September 2003
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	16, 17,18, 19 September 2003
JUDGE:	Muir J
ORDER:	Judgments for the defendants in the action
CATCHWORDS:	TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE – DUTY OF CARE – Special Relationships and Duties – Employer and Employee – where the plaintiff was employed by the defendants and was involved in an accident whilst carrying out his duties as an employee – whether the cause of the accident constituted a foreseeable risk and the defendants breached their duty of care to provide a safe system of work Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 149(1)(c) WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 (Qld), s 312(1)(b), s 312(1)(e), s 312(1)(f), s 312 (1)(h) Dixon v Cementation Co Ltd [1960] 1 WLR 746 Hamilton v Nuroof (WA) Pty Ltd (1956) 96 CLR 18 Neill v NSW Fresh Food and Ice Pty Ltd (1963) 108 CLR 362 Nagle v Rottnest Island Authority (1993) 177 CLR 423 Plumb v State of Queensland [2000] QCA 258 Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40
COUNSEL:	The plaintiff appeared in person M Grant-Taylor SC for the defendants
SOLICITORS:	The plaintiff appeared in person O’Shea Corser & Wadley for the defendants