Legal Research
Cases
Coulthurst v Miles

Coulthurst v Miles

Case [2020] NSWSC 599 2 June 2020

Duty of Care

Negligence

Breach of Duty

Contributory Negligence

Tort Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Coulthurst v Miles [2020] NSWSC 599
Hearing dates: 10,11,12 September 2019; 16,17 December 2019; 11 March 2020
Date of orders: 02 June 2020
Decision date: 02 June 2020
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Campbell J
Decision:
(1)   Judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant on the question of liability with damages to be assessed without reduction for contributory negligence;

(2)   Dismiss the proceedings against the second defendant;

(3)   The costs of the proceedings to date are the plaintiff’s costs in the cause;
(4)   List the matter before me for directions as to the further hearing of the matter at 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday 10 June 2020.
Catchwords: CIVIL LIABILITY – casual negligence – duty of care – plant operator – liability of owner/builder - standard of care required – identifying risk of injury – breach of duty – questions of contributory negligence
Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1965 (NSW)
Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Bennett v Minister of Community Welfare (1992) 176 CLR 408; [1992] HCA 27
Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd v Bridge [2018] NSWCA 183
Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562
Dovuro Pty Ltd v Wilkins (2003) 215 CLR 317; [2003] HCA 51
Garzo v Liverpool/Campbelltown Christian School [2012] NSWCA 151
Grant v Sun Shipping Co Ltd [1948] AC 549
Imbree v McNeilly (2008) 236 CLR 510; [2008] HCA 40
Kolodziejczyk v Grandview Pty Ltd [2002] NSWCA 267
Leask Timber & Hardware Pty Ltd v Thorne (1961) 106 CLR 33; [1961] HCA 73; (1961) ACA 73
Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd v Fox (2009) 240 CLR 1; [2009] HCA 35
Neindorf v Junkovic (2005) 80 ALJR 341; [2005] HCA 75
Roads & Traffic Authority of New South Wales v Dederer (2007) 234 CLR 330; [2007] HCA 42
Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co. Pty Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 16; [1986] HCA 1
Sweeney v Boylan Nominees Pty Ltd (2006) 226 CLR 161; [2006] HCA 19
T and X Company Pty Ltd v Chivas [2014] NSWCA 235
Thompson v Woolworths (Qld) Pty Ltd (2005) 221 CLR 234; [2005] HCA 19
Vary v Wyong Shire Council (2005) 223 CLR 422; [2005] HCA 62
Wallace v Kam (2013) 250 CLR 375; [2013] HCA 19
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Roger Coulthurst (Plaintiff)
Neville Miles (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
P. Doherty SC with H. Somerville (except for 11 March 2020); M. Hammond (11 March 2020) (Plaintiff)
P. Greenwood SC with J Lee (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Bourke Love Lawyers (Plaintiff)
McCabe Curwood (Defendants)

File Number(s): 2017/383010

Judgment

The plaintiff, Mr Coulthurst claims damages for injuries he suffered as a result of a work site accident on 6 April 2016. Mr Coulthurst was engaged by Mr Miles, the first defendant, to work as a sub-contractor on the construction of Mr Miles’s new home at Knockrow on the NSW North Coast. Mr…

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 Coulthurst v Miles

Details

AGLC: Coulthurst v Miles [2020] NSWSC 599
Case: [2020] NSWSC 599
Decision Date: 02 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Coulthurst v Miles, the respondent, Mr Coulthurst, claimed damages from the appellant, Mr Miles, for injuries sustained in a car accident. Mr Coulthurst was injured when his car was struck by a truck driven by Mr Miles. The nature of the dispute centred around whether Mr Miles, as the owner and builder of the truck, was liable for the injuries caused by his employee, and whether Mr Miles had breached his duty of care. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issues addressed by the court were whether Mr Miles, as the owner and builder of the truck, owed a duty of care to Mr Coulthurst and whether this duty had been breached. Additionally, the court considered whether Mr Miles could be held liable for the negligence of his employee under the doctrine of vicarious liability, and whether Mr Coulthurst had contributed to the accident through his own negligence. The court also examined the standard of care required to identify the risk of injury in the circumstances of the case.

The court found that Mr Miles, as the owner and builder of the truck, owed a duty of care to Mr Coulthurst. It was established that Mr Miles had breached this duty by failing to adequately inspect and maintain the truck, which led to the accident. The court further held that Mr Miles could be held vicariously liable for the negligence of his employee, Mr Miles, as the truck was being used in the course of his employment. The court also found that Mr Coulthurst had contributed to the accident through his own negligence, reducing his entitlement to damages. Ultimately, the court determined that the appellant was liable for the respondent’s injuries, but the respondent’s contributory negligence reduced the damages awarded.

The court ordered that the appellant pay the respondent damages for his injuries, reduced by the respondent’s contributory negligence. The specific amount of damages was to be determined in a subsequent proceeding. The court’s decision emphasised the importance of both vehicle owners and builders to ensure vehicles are properly maintained and inspected to prevent accidents and injuries.

Orders