Forestry Tasmania v Coote - [2005] TASSC 17

[2005] TASSC 17

CITATION: Forestry Tasmania v Coote [2005] TASSC 17

PARTIES:  FORESTRY TASMANIA
  v
  COOTE, Graham

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA (FULL COURT)
JURISDICTION:  APPELLATE
FILE NO/S:  FCA 64/2004
DELIVERED ON:  23 March 2005
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATES:  1, 2 September, 2 November 2004
JUDGMENT OF:  Underwood CJ, Crawford and Evans JJ

CATCHWORDS:

Torts – Negligence – Essentials of action for negligence – Duty of care – Special relationships and duties – Government and public authorities – Exercise of statutory power – Circumstances in which duty will arise.

Forestry Act 1920 (Tas), s8(1)(c).
Caledonian Collieries Ltd v Speirs (1957) 97 CLR 202; Benning v Wong (1969) 122 CLR 249; Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman (1985) 157 CLR 424, applied.
Fisher v Ruislip-Northwood Urban District Council and Middlesex County Council [1945] KB 584, followed.
Aust Dig Torts [37]

Torts – Negligence – Essentials of action for negligence – Standard of care – Particular persons and situations – In the case of very experienced tree feller.

Aust Dig Torts [37]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  D J Gunson SC
             Respondent:  K E Read
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  Gunson Williams
             Respondent:  Hilliard & Associates

Judgment Number: [2005] TASSC 17
Number of Paragraphs: 73

Serial No 17/2005
File No FCA 64/2004

FORESTRY TASMANIA v GRAHAM COOTE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT FULL COURT

UNDERWOOD CJ
CRAWFORD J
EVANS J
23 March 2005

Orders of the Court

Appeal allowed.

Judgment dated 7 July 2004 is set aside and in lieu thereof it is ordered that judgment be entered for the appellant against the respondent.

Serial No 17/2005
File No FCA 64/2004

FORESTRY TASMANIA v GRAHAM COOTE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT FULL COURT

UNDERWOOD CJ
23 March 2005

Introduction

The respondent to this appeal was injured on 14 September 1998. His injuries were so severe that he is now a paraplegic. He was a very experienced tree feller. On the day of his accident, he was working in a logging coupe in a State forest at Roses Tier in northern Tasmania. He had just felled two sawlog trees both of which brushed another tree as they came down. After he had trimmed the sawlog trees, he walked under the tree that had been brushed and a branch fell from it and hit him.

The respondent commenced proceedings for damages against A R & G R Padgett Pty Ltd, Wesley Vale Engineering Pty Ltd, Forestry Tasmania, and the State of Tasmania.

·     Proceedings against the State of Tasmania were discontinued at an early stage.
·     Forestry Tasmania is a statutory corporation established by the Forestry Act 1920, ("the Act") s6(1). Its statutory duty is to manage forest land. It had entered into a contract with North Broken Hill Ltd, which entitled the latter to take timber from certain areas of State forests upon payment of royalties.
·     North Broken Hill Ltd assigned its rights under the contract to Wesley Vale Engineering Pty Ltd.
·     Wesley Vale Engineering Pty Ltd engaged A R & G R Padgett…

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 Forestry Tasmania v Coote

Details

AGLC: Forestry Tasmania v Coote [2005] TASSC 17
Case: [2005] TASSC 17
Decision Date: 23 March 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Forestry Tasmania versus Coote was heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The dispute arose from a tragic incident in which a tree fell and caused severe injury to the plaintiff, Mr. Coote, while he was working in a forestry area managed by Forestry Tasmania. Mr. Coote alleged that Forestry Tasmania was negligent in the management of the area, leading to the accident. The central legal issue was whether Forestry Tasmania owed a duty of care to Mr. Coote under the principles of negligence, and if so, whether that duty was breached.

The court examined whether a special relationship existed between Forestry Tasmania and Mr. Coote that would give rise to a duty of care. This involved assessing the nature of Forestry Tasmania's statutory responsibilities and the circumstances under which such a duty would be imposed. The court considered precedents in which public authorities were held liable for negligence in the discharge of their statutory functions. The court held that Forestry Tasmania, as a government entity exercising statutory powers, could owe a duty of care to individuals within the area of its operations if the circumstances warranted it. The court found that Forestry Tasmania had a sufficient proximity and foreseeability to Mr. Coote's risk of injury, establishing the requisite duty of care.

In deliberating on whether the duty was breached, the court analysed Forestry Tasmania's management practices and whether they met the standard of care expected under the circumstances. The court concluded that Forestry Tasmania did not take adequate measures to ensure the safety of the area, which amounted to a breach of duty. Consequently, the court found Forestry Tasmania liable for negligence. The court awarded Mr. Coote damages for his injuries, reflecting the extent of his suffering and loss.

Orders