Douglas v Binns - [2004] QDC 429

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Douglas v Binns [2004] QDC 429

PARTIES:

WAYNE DAVID DOUGLAS  (Plaintiff)

And

DAVID ALAN BINNS and VIVIENNE MAY BINNS  (Defendants)

FILE NO/S:

CLM 19/02

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Maroochydore

DELIVERED ON:

27 October 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Maroochydore

HEARING DATE:

30^th September – 1^st October 2004

JUDGE:

Judge J.M. Robertson

ORDER:

   [1]      Plaintiff’s claim dismissed

   [2]      Judgment for the defendants with costs

CATCHWORDS:

NEGLIGENCE - Duty of care; occupier’s liability and duty of Occupier; obligations of landlord and tenant.

Cases cited:
Jones v Bartlett (2000) 205 CLR 166
Northern Sandblasting Pty Ltd v Harris (1917) 188 CLR 313
Gray v Queensland Housing Commission [2004] QSC 276

COUNSEL:

A. Stobie (for the Plaintiff)

R. Morgan (for the Defendants)

SOLICITORS:

SR Wallace & Wallace (for the Plaintiffs)

HBM Lawyers (for the Defendant)

The plaintiff Mr Wayne Douglas was born on 21 March 1947. On 24 March 2000 he and his wife Anne took possession of a holiday house at Montville which was owned by the defendants the Reverend and Mrs Binns. They had travelled to Montville from their home in Mackay to attend a family function on the Sunshine Coast, and had prearranged a holiday tenancy over the premises from 24 March 2000 to 27 March 2000.

The house is on two levels. The living area is downstairs and the bedrooms are upstairs and accessible by a wooden staircase. The only toilet is on the ground level.

Mr and Mrs Douglas arrived at the house about 3pm. Mrs Douglas made a comment to her husband to the effect that he should “be careful” about the stairs which appeared to be quite steep to her. In any event, he ascended the stairs then with some cases, and later descended before they went out to the town. Later they returned and had a meal, some wine and watched T.V. He had a shower downstairs, so he must have descended and ascended the stairs at least one more time before going to bed. He read for some time, then before going to sleep he went downstairs to go to the toilet. He was bare footed. As he descended, he slipped and fell at a point at the second winder step where the direction of the staircase takes a 90 degree turn to the left. He fell heavily and fractured his ankle. He seeks damages against the Reverend and Mrs Binns on a number of bases, including breach of an implied term of a tenancy agreement and negligence.

THE PLAINTIFF’S CASE

I am satisfied on the basis of Mr Douglas’s evidence that he fell when his right foot slipped from the second winder as he was taking the weight off his left foot which was then on the first winder as he descended the stairs. I am satisfied that he did have his hand on the left sided hand rail, but that the rail did not contribute to the fall, nor did it arrest his fall.

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 Douglas v Binns

Details

AGLC: Douglas v Binns [2004] QDC 429
Case: [2004] QDC 429
Decision Date: 27 October 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Douglas v Binns came before the court, involving a dispute regarding the liability of an occupier for injuries sustained by the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant, Binns, was negligent in his duty as an occupier of a property, resulting in the plaintiff's injuries. The court was tasked with determining whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff and whether any breach of that duty led to the plaintiff's injuries.

The central legal issues revolved around the existence and extent of the defendant's duty of care as an occupier. The court considered whether the defendant had breached any statutory or common law obligations in relation to the maintenance and safety of the property. Additionally, the court examined the relationship between the parties, including whether the defendant was an occupier or a landlord, and the implications of this distinction on the duty of care owed. Furthermore, the court explored the principles of occupiers' liability and the specific obligations of landlords and tenants under the law.

In reaching its decision, the court found that the defendant did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff. The court held that the injuries sustained by the plaintiff were not a result of any breach of duty by the defendant. The court considered the evidence and concluded that the plaintiff failed to establish a causal link between the defendant's actions and the injuries. The court also found that the defendant had taken reasonable steps to ensure the safety of the premises. As a result, the plaintiff's claim was dismissed, and judgment was entered in favour of the defendants, with costs awarded to the defendants.

Orders

Orders of the court

[1] Plaintiff’s claim dismissed

[2] Judgment for the defendants 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:	Douglas v Binns [2004] QDC 429
PARTIES:	WAYNE DAVID DOUGLAS (Plaintiff) And DAVID ALAN BINNS and VIVIENNE MAY BINNS (Defendants)
FILE NO/S:	CLM 19/02
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court, Maroochydore
DELIVERED ON:	27 October 2004
DELIVERED AT:	Maroochydore
HEARING DATE:	30^th September – 1^st October 2004
JUDGE:	Judge J.M. Robertson
ORDER:	[1] Plaintiff’s claim dismissed [2] Judgment for the defendants with costs
CATCHWORDS:	NEGLIGENCE - Duty of care; occupier’s liability and duty of Occupier; obligations of landlord and tenant. *Cases cited:* Jones v Bartlett (2000) 205 CLR 166 Northern Sandblasting Pty Ltd v Harris (1917) 188 CLR 313 Gray v Queensland Housing Commission [2004] QSC 276
COUNSEL:	A. Stobie (for the Plaintiff) R. Morgan (for the Defendants)
SOLICITORS:	SR Wallace & Wallace (for the Plaintiffs) HBM Lawyers (for the Defendant)