Chapman v Indoor Raceways Pty Ltd - [1998] QCA 118

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1998] QCA 118
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Appeal No. 9242 of 1997

Brisbane

[Chapman v Indoor Raceways P/L]

BETWEEN:

DAVID CHAPMAN

(Plaintiff) Appellant

AND:

INDOOR RACEWAYS PTY LTD
ACN 055 411 722

(Defendant) Respondent
McPherson JA
Thomas J
Lee J

Judgment delivered 2 June 1998

Joint reasons for judgment of Thomas and Lee JJ, separate reasons of McPherson JA concurring as to the order made.

APPEAL DISMISSED WITH COSTS

CATCHWORDS:	TORTS - Negligence - occupier - go-kart racing - guard-rail barrier in vicinity of track - whether barrier should have been removed - argument not raised at trial where the issues were first whether there was a defect in the steering, and second, whether the barrier should have been covered with protective tyres - insufficient evidence in any event to establish negligence on that ground.
Counsel:	Mr T.C. Somers for the appellant Mr W. Sofronoff QC with him Mr K. Holyoak for the respondent
Solicitors:	Keller Nall & Brown for the appellant Phillips Fox for the respondent
Hearing Date:	21 May 1998

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Appeal No. 9242 of 1997

Brisbane

Before

McPherson J.A.
Thomas J.
Lee J.

[Chapman v. Indoor Raceways P/L]

BETWEEN:

DAVID CHAPMAN

(Plaintiff) Appellant

AND:

INDOOR RACEWAYS PTY LTD ACN 055 411 722

(Defendant) Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - McPHERSON J.A.

Judgment delivered 2 June 1998

I agree with the joint reasons of Thomas and Lee JJ., which I have had the advantage of

reading.

On appeal, the plaintiff’s case was presented on the basis that the defendant was at fault in

permitting a solid object to remain in close proximity to the go-kart track. The object in question was

the Armco barrier which, so far as can be gathered, was intended to shield certain trees that grew

behind it; or (one does not really know which) to protect drivers who accidentally left the track from

colliding with those trees.

The problem with that approach to the matter on appeal is that it was not the case presented

at the trial; and, if it had been, the defence would no doubt have made some attempt to adduce evidence

to meet it. Whether it would have satisfactorily explained the presence of those objects is a matter

which we are not now in a position to know or even speculate about.

It would, however, be quite wrong for this Court now to try to determine the action on that

basis in the absence of evidence, or of an opportunity for both sides to present evidence, to enable that

question to be properly determined. It is evident that at the trial the only two matters litigated were (1)

the allegation that the steering of the vehicle was defective; and (2) the further allegation that the Armco

barrier was not cushioned sufficiently to prevent injury to anyone who had the misfortune to be thrown

towards or against it. On both of those issues…

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 Chapman v Indoor Raceways Pty Ltd 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: [1998] QCA 118
Decision Date: 2/06/1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Chapman v Indoor Raceways Pty Ltd involved a claim for damages by a participant in a go-kart racing event at the respondent's facility. The plaintiff, Mr Chapman, was injured during the race when his go-kart collided with a guard-rail barrier placed near the track. He alleged that the barrier should have been removed or adequately protected, leading to his injuries. The respondent denied liability, arguing that there was no defect in the steering of the kart and that the barrier was appropriately positioned. The case was heard and determined in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the respondent, as the occupier of the premises, had a duty of care to ensure that the guard-rail barrier was either removed or adequately protected. The court had to consider whether the barrier constituted a dangerous condition that the respondent should have addressed to prevent foreseeable harm to participants. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the respondent breached any duty of care by not taking appropriate measures to safeguard against the risk of injury from the barrier.

The court found that the argument concerning the guard-rail barrier was not sufficiently raised at trial, where the focus was on the condition of the kart's steering and the adequacy of the barrier's protection. The court concluded that there was insufficient evidence to establish negligence on the ground that the barrier should have been removed or better protected. The court held that the respondent did not breach any duty of care owed to the plaintiff regarding the barrier. Consequently, the respondent was not liable for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff.

The Supreme Court of Victoria dismissed the plaintiff's claim, finding in favour of the respondent. The court did not make any specific orders as the claim was already dismissed on the grounds of insufficient evidence to prove negligence.

Orders