Crooks v Fitzgerald - [2002] QCA 307

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Crooks v Fitzgerald [2002] QCA 307

PARTIES:

PAUL WILLIAM CROOKS
(plaintiff / appellant)
v
BARRY FITZGERALD
(defendant / respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 9642 of 2001
SC No 9310 of 2000

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

23 August 2002

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

3 June 2002

JUDGES:

McPherson JA, White and Wilson JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made.

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed with costs

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – DUTY OF CARE – REASONABLE FORESEEABILITY OF DAMAGE – PARTICULAR CASES – OTHER PARTICULAR CASES – where bystander injured – whether injury reasonably foreseeable

Chapman v Hearse (1961) 106 CLR 112, considered
H v Pennell and The State of South Australia (1987) 46 SASR 158, considered
Harvey v Singer Manufacturing Co. Ltd [1960] SC 155, considered
Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837, considered
Jones v Bartlett (2000) 205 CLR 166, considered
Romeo v Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory (1997-98) 192 CLR 431, followed

COUNSEL:

M Grant-Taylor SC, with R Green, for the appellant
D North SC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Boyce Garrick for the appellant
Moray & Agnew for the respondent

McPHERSON JA: I agree with the reasons of White J for dismissing this appeal.

The real problem confronting the plaintiff in this unhappy matter is that the evidence fails to identify the reason why the grinding wheel disintegrated. Unlike the remainder of this item of equipment, the grinding wheel was new, and there is no reason to think it was not bought from a reputable supplier. One may guess that there may have been a defect in the grinder, which was old, to which the wheel was fitted; but that is no more than conjecture and does not amount to proof of the cause of the ensuing event and injury to the plaintiff.

Not without some regret, I therefore conclude that the learned trial judge was correct in giving judgment for the defendant.

WHITE J: The appellant who was the plaintiff below claimed damages for personal injury which he suffered when the grinding wheel of an angle grinder disintegrated. The grinder was being used by the respondent at his home and the appellant was assisting him. The action was brought against the respondent as occupier of the premises but the act complained of concerned the respondent only and not the condition of the place where the injury was sustained.

His Honour dismissed the appellant’s claim but, as is usual in these matters, assessed the quantum of the claim. The appeal as instituted was in respect of both liability and quantum. At the commencement of the appeal Mr Grant-Taylor SC, for the appellant, abandoned the appeal so far as it related to quantum.

The issue for determination on appeal, as it was for the learned trial judge, is a narrow one. In essence it is…

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 Crooks v Fitzgerald

Details

AGLC: Crooks v Fitzgerald [2002] QCA 307
Case: [2002] QCA 307
Decision Date: 23 August 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal was called upon to determine the extent of a duty of care owed by the defendant to the plaintiff in a personal injury case. The plaintiff, who was present as a bystander, was injured when the defendant negligently drove into a group of pedestrians. The appeal was against a lower court's decision which found the defendant liable for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff. The primary issue before the Court was whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff and if the injury was reasonably foreseeable. The Court considered whether the circumstances of this case fell within the established principles of negligence, particularly in relation to the foreseeability of harm to a bystander in such situations.

The Court examined the legal principles surrounding the duty of care and reasonable foreseeability, referencing established case law. It determined that the lower court had correctly applied the principles in finding the defendant liable. The Court held that the defendant's actions were such that it was reasonably foreseeable that a bystander could be injured. The Court noted that the principles established in precedent cases concerning the duty of care owed to bystanders were applicable here, and that the lower court's decision was in line with these precedents.

Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the lower court's decision, holding that the defendant was indeed liable for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff. The Court emphasised that the defendant's negligence in driving into a group of pedestrians was sufficient to establish a duty of care to all those in the vicinity, including the plaintiff. Given the findings, the Court ruled that the lower court's judgment was correct and dismissed the appeal with costs awarded to the respondent.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed with costs

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:	Crooks v Fitzgerald [2002] QCA 307
PARTIES:	PAUL WILLIAM CROOKS (plaintiff / appellant) v BARRY FITZGERALD (defendant / respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 9642 of 2001 SC No 9310 of 2000
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	23 August 2002
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	3 June 2002
JUDGES:	McPherson JA, White and Wilson JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made.
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed with costs
CATCHWORDS:	TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – DUTY OF CARE – REASONABLE FORESEEABILITY OF DAMAGE – PARTICULAR CASES – OTHER PARTICULAR CASES – where bystander injured – whether injury reasonably foreseeable Chapman v Hearse (1961) 106 CLR 112, considered H v Pennell and The State of South Australia (1987) 46 SASR 158, considered Harvey v Singer Manufacturing Co. Ltd [1960] SC 155, considered Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837, considered Jones v Bartlett (2000) 205 CLR 166, considered Romeo v Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory (1997-98) 192 CLR 431, followed
COUNSEL:	M Grant-Taylor SC, with R Green, for the appellant D North SC for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Boyce Garrick for the appellant Moray & Agnew for the respondent