Dowell v Queensland Rail - [2009] QDC 47

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Dowell v Queensland Rail [2009] QDC 47

PARTIES:

RODNEY DOWELL
(Plaintiff)

v

QUEENSLAND RAIL (ABN 47 564 947 264)
(Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BD129/07

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

6 March 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

17, 18, 19 & 20 February 2009

JUDGE:

Ryrie DCJ

ORDER:

Judgment for the defendant.

The parties are given leave to make submissions in writing on costs within 28 days, failing agreement between the parties.

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – DANGEROUS PREMISES – INJURIES TO PERSONS ENTERING PREMISES – PREMISES CONTROLLED BY PUBLIC AUTHORITY – where the plaintiff suffered injury at a kerb at a train station – whether the painted white area of the kerb was causative of the injury

DAMAGES - MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT - MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where quantum and liability are in question – where the plaintiff suffered an injury at the defendant’s premises

Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld), ss 54, 55 & 62
Civil Liability Regulations 2003 (Qld), Schedule 4

Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna (1987) 162 CLR 479, cited
Thompson v Woolworths (Qld) Pty Ltd (2005) 221 CLR 234, cited
Wilkinson v BP Australia Pty Ltd [2008] QSC 171, cited
White v Calstores P/L [2006] QCA 535, considered
Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40, cited

COUNSEL:

Mr R King-Scott for the plaintiff

Mr M O’Sullivan for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Paul Everingham & Co for the plaintiff

David Drew, Corporate Counsel QR Limited for the defendant

In this action the plaintiff (‘Mr Dowell’) seeks to recover damages for personal injuries which he says was occasioned by the negligence of the defendant (‘Queensland Rail’). Liability and quantum are both in issue.

Counsel for Mr Dowell abandoned any claim for damages beyond the court’s jurisdiction. He also abandoned any claim arising from any breach of contract. No further amendments were made to the pleadings by either the plaintiff or the defendant during the hearing.

Liability

Mr Dowell’s evidence given at hearing

Mr Dowell gave evidence that he had arrived at the Caboolture railway station in the early hours of the morning of the 16^th January 2004 in order to catch a train to work in Brisbane. He was working as a Steel Fixer at the Casino Towers site at that time. Upon arrival at the station, Mr Dowell parked his car at the station car park. It was dark and raining heavily. It is accepted that there was sufficient artificial lighting in the area. After exiting his car, he traversed through the car park and then across a roadway in a diagonal direction towards the main entrance of the station by walking briskly, in order not to get wet. He was wearing football socks and thongs (‘double pluggers’) at the time. He was carrying his work boots and work bag in his right hand. In…

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 Dowell v Queensland Rail

Details

AGLC: Dowell v Queensland Rail [2009] QDC 47
Case: [2009] QDC 47
Decision Date: 6 March 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dowell brought an action against Queensland Rail, seeking damages for injuries sustained at a train station. The plaintiff alleged that the injury was caused by the painted white area of the kerb at the station. The dispute was heard and determined by the District Court of Queensland. The central legal issues were whether the painted white area of the kerb was causative of the plaintiff’s injury and, if so, whether the defendant could be held liable for the damages claimed. The court had to examine the principles of negligence in the context of dangerous premises, particularly those controlled by a public authority.

The court examined the evidence presented and determined that the painted white area of the kerb did not constitute a dangerous condition that could be attributed to the defendant’s negligence. The court found that the plaintiff had not provided sufficient evidence to establish a causal link between the painted white area and the injury. The court also considered the remoteness of the damages and held that, even if a causal link could be established, the plaintiff’s injuries were not sufficiently connected to the condition of the premises to hold the defendant liable. The court found that the plaintiff’s actions, rather than the condition of the premises, were the primary cause of the injury.

Consequently, the court found in favour of the defendant. The court’s reasoning and conclusion were based on a careful analysis of the evidence and the applicable legal principles. The plaintiff’s claim for damages was dismissed, and the defendant was found not liable. The parties were granted leave to make written submissions on the question of costs within 28 days, should they fail to reach an agreement between themselves.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgment for the defendant.

The parties are given leave to make submissions in writing on costs within 28 days, failing agreement between the parties.

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:	Dowell v Queensland Rail [2009] QDC 47
PARTIES:	RODNEY DOWELL (Plaintiff) v QUEENSLAND RAIL (ABN 47 564 947 264) (Defendant)
FILE NO/S:	BD129/07
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	6 March 2009
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	17, 18, 19 & 20 February 2009
JUDGE:	Ryrie DCJ
ORDER:	Judgment for the defendant. The parties are given leave to make submissions in writing on costs within 28 days, failing agreement between the parties.
CATCHWORDS:	TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – DANGEROUS PREMISES – INJURIES TO PERSONS ENTERING PREMISES – PREMISES CONTROLLED BY PUBLIC AUTHORITY – where the plaintiff suffered injury at a kerb at a train station – whether the painted white area of the kerb was causative of the injury DAMAGES - MEASURE AND REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN ACTIONS FOR TORT - MEASURE OF DAMAGES – PERSONAL INJURIES – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where quantum and liability are in question – where the plaintiff suffered an injury at the defendant’s premises Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld), ss 54, 55 & 62 Civil Liability Regulations 2003 (Qld), Schedule 4 Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna (1987) 162 CLR 479, cited Thompson v Woolworths (Qld) Pty Ltd (2005) 221 CLR 234, cited Wilkinson v BP Australia Pty Ltd [2008] QSC 171, cited White v Calstores P/L [2006] QCA 535, considered Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40, cited
COUNSEL:	Mr R King-Scott for the plaintiff Mr M O’Sullivan for the defendant
SOLICITORS:	Paul Everingham & Co for the plaintiff David Drew, Corporate Counsel QR Limited for the defendant