Clarricoats v JJ Richards & Sons Pty Ltd - [2017] QSC 214

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Clarricoats v JJ Richards & Sons Pty Ltd [2017] QSC 214

PARTIES:

JOSHUA BENJAMIN CLARRICOATS

(Plaintiff)

v

JJ RICHARDS & SONS PTY LTD

(Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

S615 of 2015

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Rockhampton

DELIVERED ON:

29 September 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Rockhampton

HEARING DATE:

17, 18, 19, 20, 21 July 2017.

JUDGE:

McMeekin J

ORDER:

Judgment for the Defendant

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – GENERALLY – where plaintiff claims damages for injuries suffered in the course of employment with the defendant – where both liability and quantum of damages are in contention

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – BREACH OF DUTY – where the plaintiff alleges the defendant breached their duty of care in instructing the plaintiff to drive the truck with the defective seat – where it is alleged that the plaintiff’s back injury occurred in the course of that drive – where the defendant argues that the decision to direct the plaintiff to drive the vehicle from Moranbah was a reasonable one in the light of the information they had at that time – whether the decision to direct the plaintiff to drive the truck with inoperative air suspension under the driver’s seat involved a breach of the duty of care admittedly owed

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – CAUSATION – where the pleaded case included the initial collapse of the seat as causative of the injury – where the plaintiff alleges that the injury suffered was caused by the employer requiring him to drive from Moranbah to his home depot at Clermont after the shock absorber of the driver’s seat broke away from its mounting bracket – where the defendant contends that the injury was sustained at the time that the seat collapsed, not on the drive to Clermont – whether the injury was caused by the forces impacting on the plaintiff’s spine during the return drive

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE – GENERALLY – where the defendant claims the plaintiff was contributorily negligent – whether there is anything the plaintiff could have done to avoid the injury – whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent and what apportionment should be allotted

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – DAMAGES – GENERAL DAMAGES – where assessment is considerably clouded by plaintiff’s exaggeration of his symptomatology to the medical practitioners – where the claimed disabilities as explained to the medical practitioners and what is seen on the surveillance footage is stark – where a number of expert medical practitioners determined that they could not support any continuing disability that fell within their respective disciplines following their viewing of the surveillance material – whether the views of the expert medical practitioners overlooked certain objective evidence – whether the plaintiff suffers an ongoing disability

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – DAMAGES – PAST ECONOMIC LOSS – FUTURE ECONOMIC LOSS – where the plaintiff was only employed by the defendant for a few months prior to the incident occurring – where the plaintiff was kept on at the workplace…

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 Clarricoats v JJ Richards & Sons 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: [2017] QSC 214
Decision Date: 29 September 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Clarricoats v JJ Richards & Sons Pty Ltd involved a claim for damages for injuries sustained during employment. The plaintiff, Clarricoats, alleged that he suffered a back injury while driving a truck with a defective seat, which the defendant, JJ Richards & Sons Pty Ltd, had instructed him to operate. The plaintiff argued that this constituted a breach of the defendant’s duty of care, and that the injury was exacerbated on the return drive from Moranbah to Clermont. The defendant contended that the injury occurred when the seat collapsed initially and that any subsequent discomfort was not due to the seat defect. The case also examined issues of causation, contributory negligence, and the quantum of damages, particularly in light of the plaintiff’s exaggeration of symptoms to medical practitioners.

The court had to determine whether the defendant breached its duty of care by directing the plaintiff to drive the truck with the defective seat. The plaintiff claimed that the injury occurred on the drive back to Clermont, while the defendant argued that the injury was sustained when the seat collapsed. The court needed to assess the reasonableness of the defendant's decision to instruct the plaintiff to drive the vehicle, considering the information available at the time. Additionally, the court had to evaluate the plaintiff's contributory negligence, considering if there was anything he could have done to avoid the injury. Finally, the assessment of damages was complicated by the plaintiff's alleged exaggeration of his symptoms, which raised questions about the existence and extent of any ongoing disability.

The court found that the defendant did not breach its duty of care by directing the plaintiff to drive the truck with the defective seat, as this decision was reasonable given the circumstances and information available at the time. The court also determined that the plaintiff was not contributorily negligent in the circumstances. Regarding causation, the court concluded that the plaintiff's injury was not caused by the return drive but rather by the initial collapse of the seat. The assessment of damages was further complicated by the plaintiff’s exaggeration of symptoms. The court found that the plaintiff did not suffer from any ongoing disability and thus awarded no damages.

Judgment was entered in favour of the defendant, with no damages awarded to the plaintiff.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgment for the Defendant

Background

Background to the litigation

And then in re-examination, after being asked to assume Mr Clarricoats’ description of the onset of symptoms:“Doctor, what, if anything, do you say, given that analysis of the facts, was the cause of his problem?It’s a combination of all. I mean, the first instance is the initial event. Now, that’s – that’s progressed whatever the problem – underlying problem is enough that he’s got more pain. It also makes him a little more susceptible to aggravation of that pain with impact on his back, which is what the seat is doing every time it bottoms out. So to me, the – the story is completely consistent, and this is just a continuation of the aggravation.”[6] (my emphasis)[6]T4-25/33-39. Mr Clarricoats’ evidence was that he suffered the onset of pain in his back on the drive to Clermont, not when the seat collapsed. On this point, as on some others, the case is a peculiar one. Each side advances propositions that are contradictory. Mr Clarricoats alleges that he did not suffer injury when the seat collapsed but only on the journey back to base. Yet his case is – on one version - that he told his manager Mr Higgins that he did suffer injury to his back when the seat collapsed. Mr Higgins says that he was not told by Mr Clarricoats of any problem with his back before Mr Clarricoats arrived back at base. Yet the defendant’s case is that Mr Clarricoats injured his back, initially at least, when the seat collapsed, not on the journey home. I shall endeavour to determine the facts on the probabilities. I record that I thought that Mr Higgins appeared to be a reliable and sincere witness. In his evidence Mr Clarricoats said that when the seat collapsed he felt a “bit of a jar” but had no symptoms at all. He had no problems changing gears (there were 16 forward gears), alighting from the truck, or in driving it. When asked about symptoms on driving the truck a short distance when still at Moranbah he said: “discomfort and the inconvenience of having a seat throwing me around the cabin, nothing unusual”. Then, after stating that his manager, Mr Higgins, told him to drive the truck back to Clermont, he gave the following evidence:Did you say anything to him? I did. I said that it was going to take a long time. The vehicle was obviously in a dangerous position. My back was – I was experiencing the discomfort having to drive the truck, and – but I followed his instructions.And did you tell him something about the journey back? I said it would take a while, obviously, because of the nature of the truck.Did he respond? He said that would be fine. Just drive the truck back.[7]…HIS HONOUR: I didn’t quite follow what you just said. Did you tell Mr Higgins, your boss, that you were experiencing discomfort before you commenced the journey back with the broken seat? I did, yes. The discomfort was, obviously, as a result of what I had already been experiencing driving the truck.Never mind the cause of it, but I want to know what you said to Mr Higgins as best you can recall? As best as I can recall, I said that my back was experiencing discomfort, I was – whether or not it was injured, I think I might have said that. But, yes, it was nothing out of the ordinary.[8][7] T2-7/1-9. [8] T2-7/16-25.

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:	Clarricoats v JJ Richards & Sons Pty Ltd [2017] QSC 214
PARTIES:	JOSHUA BENJAMIN CLARRICOATS (Plaintiff) v JJ RICHARDS & SONS PTY LTD (Defendant)
FILE NO/S:	S615 of 2015
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Rockhampton
DELIVERED ON:	29 September 2017
DELIVERED AT:	Rockhampton
HEARING DATE:	17, 18, 19, 20, 21 July 2017.
JUDGE:	McMeekin J
ORDER:	Judgment for the Defendant
CATCHWORDS:	TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – GENERALLY – where plaintiff claims damages for injuries suffered in the course of employment with the defendant – where both liability and quantum of damages are in contention TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – BREACH OF DUTY – where the plaintiff alleges the defendant breached their duty of care in instructing the plaintiff to drive the truck with the defective seat – where it is alleged that the plaintiff’s back injury occurred in the course of that drive – where the defendant argues that the decision to direct the plaintiff to drive the vehicle from Moranbah was a reasonable one in the light of the information they had at that time – whether the decision to direct the plaintiff to drive the truck with inoperative air suspension under the driver’s seat involved a breach of the duty of care admittedly owed TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – CAUSATION – where the pleaded case included the initial collapse of the seat as causative of the injury – where the plaintiff alleges that the injury suffered was caused by the employer requiring him to drive from Moranbah to his home depot at Clermont after the shock absorber of the driver’s seat broke away from its mounting bracket – where the defendant contends that the injury was sustained at the time that the seat collapsed, not on the drive to Clermont – whether the injury was caused by the forces impacting on the plaintiff’s spine during the return drive TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE – GENERALLY – where the defendant claims the plaintiff was contributorily negligent – whether there is anything the plaintiff could have done to avoid the injury – whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent and what apportionment should be allotted TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – DAMAGES – GENERAL DAMAGES – where assessment is considerably clouded by plaintiff’s exaggeration of his symptomatology to the medical practitioners – where the claimed disabilities as explained to the medical practitioners and what is seen on the surveillance footage is stark – where a number of expert medical practitioners determined that they could not support any continuing disability that fell within their respective disciplines following their viewing of the surveillance material – whether the views of the expert medical practitioners overlooked certain objective evidence – whether the plaintiff suffers an ongoing disability TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – DAMAGES – PAST ECONOMIC LOSS – FUTURE ECONOMIC LOSS – where the plaintiff was only employed by the defendant for a few months prior to the incident occurring – where the plaintiff was kept on at the workplace…