Legal Research
Cases
Flatman v Epps

Flatman v Epps

Case [2006] VSCA 183 8 September 2006

Negligence

Causation

Contributory Negligence

Reasonable Prudence

Risk Foreseeability

Tort Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 3732 of 2005

ROBYN FLATMAN
	Appellant
v.
SHARYN EPPS	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	MAXWELL, P., NEAVE and REDLICH, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	3 July 2006
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	8 September 2006
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSCA 183	1^st Revision 8 September 2006

---

PERSONAL INJURIES — Negligence — Contributory negligence — Plaintiff injured while helping her sister dismantle a garage— Whether judge erred in not finding contributory negligence — Adequacy of reasons — Whether plaintiff acted with reasonable prudence —Whether risk reasonably foreseeable — Causation — Onus on defendant to show that the reasonable steps the plaintiff should have taken would have averted injury — Onus not discharged —Appeal dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr D.E. Curtain, Q.C. with Mr A.M. Donald	Norris Coates Lawyers
For the Respondent	Mr T.J. Casey, Q.C. with Mr J.F. Goldberg	Secombs Solicitors

MAXWELL, P.:

I have had the considerable advantage of reading in draft the reasons for judgment of Redlich, J.A. For the reasons given by his Honour, I too would dismiss the appeal.

NEAVE, J.A.:

I agree with Redlich, J.A., for the reasons he has stated, that the appeal should be dismissed.

REDLICH, J.A.:

The appellant and respondent are sisters. I shall refer to them by their first names. Sharyn suffered an injury to her knee when a garage frame which she was helping Robyn to dismantle in Robyn’s backyard collapsed. Sharyn sued Robyn for damages, claiming that Robyn was in breach of both her common law duty of care and her statutory duties as an occupier.[1] A judge of the County Court found Robyn to be in breach of those duties and rejected Robyn’s claim that Sharyn had failed to take care for her own safety. Sharyn was awarded general and special damages.
[1]See sections 14A, 14B and 14D, Wrongs Act 1958.

This appeal by Robyn is concerned only with the finding that there was no contributory negligence by Sharyn. Robyn contends that Sharyn’s damages should have been reduced by 50% for contributory negligence.

The grounds of appeal raise four issues. Did the judge –

(a)fail to give adequate reasons for rejecting Robyn’s allegation of contributory negligence?
(b)apply the wrong test for contributory negligence?
(c)fail to consider adequately Robyn’s case on contributory negligence?

(d)in finding that Sharyn was not guilty of contributory negligence, make a finding which was against the weight of the evidence?

The facts

In 1990, Sharyn bought a steel garage for her car. The garage was erected at her premises. The columns supporting the structure were embedded in concrete. Sharyn knew that its erection took one man a couple of hours but did not watch the work being done. Eventually Sharyn offered her garage to Robyn, who agreed to take it. Robyn’s son and her partner disassembled the garage and transported the pieces to Robyn’s home. Although Sharyn did not participate in its disassembly, Sharyn knew that nuts and bolts held the frame together.

The…

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 Flatman v Epps

Details

AGLC: Flatman v Epps [2006] VSCA 183
Case: [2006] VSCA 183
Decision Date: 8 September 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Flatman v Epps was an appeal concerning a claim for damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff while assisting her sister in dismantling a garage. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The primary issue before the court was whether the trial judge had erred in not finding the plaintiff contributorily negligent in the circumstances of her injury. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the reasons provided by the trial judge were adequate and whether the plaintiff had acted with reasonable prudence, considering the foreseeability of the risk involved.

The court examined the onus of proof regarding contributory negligence. It noted that the burden was on the defendant to show that the reasonable steps the plaintiff should have taken would have averted the injury. The court concluded that the defendant had not discharged this onus, as there was insufficient evidence to suggest that the plaintiff's actions were unreasonable under the circumstances. The trial judge's reasons were deemed adequate, as they clearly outlined the considerations that led to the conclusion that the plaintiff was not contributorily negligent. The risk involved was found to be reasonably foreseeable, and the plaintiff's actions were deemed to be within the realm of reasonable prudence.

The court found that the plaintiff had not acted negligently in a manner that contributed to her injury. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the lower court's decision was upheld. The final orders confirmed that the plaintiff was entitled to recover damages from the defendant for the injuries sustained during the garage dismantling.

Orders