REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
B.W. Ambrose J.
Delivered the 2nd day of July 2001
CATCHWORDS: TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – Contributory Negligence – Road Accident Cases – apportionment of responsibility and damages – when a 12 year old child whilst crossing a road struck by motor vehicle – failure to keep a proper look out – failure to give warning by approaching vehicle - failure to reduce speed – whether the first defendant had discharged her duty to take precautions to guard against and avoid the accident – the degree of care owed to a 12 year old child - failure to keep in mind the propensities of a child who may sometimes act impulsively – the extent of the plaintiff’s conduct involved a substantial departure from the standard to be expected of an ordinary child of 12 years – relative culpability of adult driver of motor vehicle and child pedestrian.

DAMAGES – General Principles – Griffiths v Kerkemeyer principles – Gratuitous past and future care – when the plaintiff was in hospital whether gratuitous care from the next friend/mother was required – whether it is proper to make allowance for the attendance of parents at hospital – whether it would be unfair to require the defendant to pay damages for gratuitous care based on agencies’ costs, when no such costs have been incurred.

Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (Qld) s 12, s 13(1), s 81 and s 245
Public Trustee Act 1978 (Qld), s 65(1), s 67(2), s 80(1)(d) & (c)
Supreme Court Act 1995 (Qld), s 16(1)
Beasley v Marshall (No. 4) (1986) 42 SASR 407, considered.
Griffiths v Doolan [1959] Qd R 304, considered.
Griffiths v Kerkemeyer (1977) 139 CLR 161, applied.
Grincelis v House (1998) 84 FCR 190, applied.
Grincelis v House (2000) 201 CLR 321, applied.
Gunning v Fellows (1997) 25 MVR 97, followed.
Jones v Moylan [No. 2] (2000) 23 WAR 65, followed.
Kars v Kars (1996) 187 CLR 354, considered.
Lynch v Nurdien [1841] 1 QB 29, cited.
Marinko & Anor v Masri (2000) AustTortsR 81-581, considered.
Marsland v Andjelic (1993) 31 NSWLR 162, applied.
Mott v Fire and All Risk Insurance Co Ltd [2000] 2 Qd R 34, applied.
Nguyen v Nguyen (1990) 169 CLR 245, applied.
O’Connell v Brisbane City Council& Another [1966] QWN 26, applied.
Pennington v Norris (1956) 96 CLR 10, cited.
Porter v Tisco Pty Ltd [1964] QWN 14, considered.
Re DJR and the Mental Health Act, 1958 [1983] 1 NSWLR 557, considered.
Redding v J.F. Thomson & Anor SC No 2902 of 1984, 14 October 1988, considered.
Rowes Bus Service Pty Ltd Cowan; Sufong v Cowan (1999) 29 MVR…

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 Goode v Thompson

Details

AGLC: Goode v Thompson [2001] QSC 287
Case: [2001] QSC 287
Decision Date: 2/07/2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, the case of Goode v Thompson involved a 12-year-old plaintiff who was severely injured after being struck by a vehicle driven by the first defendant. The plaintiff suffered a severe head injury that destroyed his earning capacity and required him to be under full-time care for the rest of his life. The court had to decide whether the first defendant was negligent in failing to keep a proper lookout and avoid the accident, as well as determine the extent of contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff. The court found that the first defendant was guilty of negligence, primarily in failing to keep a proper lookout and not taking precautions against foreseeable childish conduct. The court apportioned 80% of the fault to the first defendant and 20% to the plaintiff.

In terms of damages, the court assessed the total damages and special damages at $3,648,136.48, with management fees amounting to $188,922.00. The court ordered that $246,492.85 be paid directly to the next friend of the plaintiff, Tracey Anne Goode, as reimbursement for special damages paid on behalf of the plaintiff and for past gratuitous care rendered by her to the plaintiff with the assistance of her family. The balance of the judgment sum, $3,590,565.63, was ordered to be paid to Perpetual Trustees Australia Limited, to be held upon trust for the plaintiff and invested on his behalf in a managed fund. The court also appointed Perpetual Trustees Australia Limited as the Trustee to manage the monies to which the plaintiff was entitled under the judgment.

Orders