KEITH DARRELL CARRIER (Plaintiff) And JOHN LLEWELLYN BONHAM (First Defendant) And STATE OF QUEENSLAND (Second Defendant)
FILE NO/S:
Plaint D788 of 1998
DIVISION:
PROCEEDING:
Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
4 August 2000
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
10 – 14 April 2000
JUDGE:
McGill DCJ
ORDER:
Judgment that the first defendant pay the plaintiff $113,060. Plaintiff’s claim against the second defendant dismissed. The first defendant’s claim for indemnity or contribution against the second defendant dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:
NEGLIGENCE – nervous shock – bus driver suffering psychiatric injury from suicide attempt – whether person attempting suicide liable – whether operator of hospital to which he had been admitted liable
NEGLIGENCE – standard of care – person of unsound mind – whether standard of care lowered
NEGLIGENCE – duty of care – hospital for mentally ill – duty to persons in vicinity to restrain dangerous patients
NEGLIGENCE – hospital for mentally ill – whether breach of duty to take reasonable care to control dangerous patient
NEGLIGENCE – hospital for mentally ill – whether duty to patient – whether breach of duty in failing to supervise more closely to prevent absconding
TORT – trespass – assault and battery – not committed to bus driver by person who deliberately steps in front of bus to commit suicide TORT – trespass – defence – unsoundness of mind of defendant – not absolute defences – relevant to existence of intention
TORT – action on the case – intentional act causing harm – suicide attempt causing psychiatric injury to bus driver – whether actionable
TORT – intentional act causing harm – suicide attempt – whether unsoundness of mind a defence
MENTAL HEALTH – effect of mental illness on civil rights and duties – torts – trespass to the person – action on the case – negligence
Savignac v. Roome (1794) 6 TR 125; 101 ER 470 – cited Wilkinson v. Downton[1897] 2 QB 57 – applied Janvier v. Sweeney[1919] 2 KB 316 – applied Bunyan v. Jordan(1937) 57 CLR 1 - applied Nance v. British Columbia Electric Railway Co Ltd[1951] AC 601 – followed Northern Territory v. Mengel(1995) 185 CLR 307 – cited Khorasandjian v. Bush[1993] QB 727 - cited Sherry v. Dunwoody (Mackay Plaint 129/94, Wolfe DCJ, 7/8/98, unreported) – followed A v. B’s Trustees (1906) 13 SLT 830 – followed Blakeley v. Shortal’s Estate 20 NW 2d 28 (1945) - followed Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330 – cited Donoghue v. Stevenson[1932] AC 562 - cited Burnie Port Authority v. General Jones Pty Ltd(1994) 178 CLR 520 – cited Weaver v. Ward(1616) Hob 134; 80 ER 284 – cited Mordaunt v. Mordaunt (1870) LR 2 P&D 103 – cited Morriss v. Marsden [1952] 1 TLR 947 – followed Donaghy v. Brennan(1900) 19 NZLR 289 – cited Taggard v. Innes (1862) 12 Upp.Can.C.P. 77 – cited Williams…
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.
Continue reading Carrier v Bonham
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Carrier v Bonham [2000] QDC 226
Case
[2000] QDC 226
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Carrier v Bonham involved the plaintiff, a bus driver, who suffered psychiatric injury after a passenger, Bonham, attempted suicide by stepping in front of the bus. The plaintiff sought damages from both Bonham and the hospital to which Bonham had been admitted. The key legal issues revolved around whether the person attempting suicide could be held liable for the psychiatric injury suffered by the bus driver, whether the hospital owed a duty of care to the bus driver, and whether the standard of care was lowered for a person of unsound mind. The court also had to consider whether the hospital breached its duty to control dangerous patients and whether the hospital owed a duty to the bus driver to prevent him from absconding.
The court ruled that the person attempting suicide was not liable for the psychiatric injury suffered by the bus driver, as it was not an intentional act causing harm. The court held that the unsoundness of mind of the defendant was relevant to the existence of intention but not an absolute defence. The court further found that the hospital did not owe a duty of care to the bus driver to prevent the suicide attempt, as the bus driver was not in the vicinity of the hospital at the time of the incident. The court also held that the hospital did not breach its duty to control dangerous patients or owe a duty to the bus driver to prevent him from absconding. The court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim against the hospital and the first defendant’s claim for indemnity or contribution against the second defendant.
The final orders of the court were that the first defendant, Bonham, pay the plaintiff $113,060, and that the plaintiff’s claim against the second defendant, the hospital, be dismissed. The first defendant’s claim for indemnity or contribution against the second defendant was also dismissed. The court found that the hospital did not owe a duty of care to the bus driver and that the bus driver’s psychiatric injury was not caused by the hospital’s negligence. The court also found that the person attempting suicide was not liable for the psychiatric injury suffered by the bus driver, as it was not an intentional act causing harm.
Orders
Orders of the court
Judgment that the first defendant pay the plaintiff $113,060. Plaintiff’s claim against the second defendant dismissed. The first defendant’s claim for indemnity or contribution against the second defendant dismissed.