Green v Hanson Construction Materials Pty Ltd

Case [2007] QCA 260


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Green v Hanson Construction Materials Pty Ltd [2007]
QCA 260

PARTIES:

MARGARET GREEN
(plaintiff/respondent)
v
HANSON CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS PTY LTD (ACN 009 679 734)
(defendant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 532 of 2007
DC No 2865 of 2004

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

10 August 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

12 June 2007

JUDGES:

Jerrard JA, White and Atkinson JJ
Judgment of the Court

ORDER:

1. Appeal allowed
2. Reduce damages awarded by 30 per cent to $103,358.22
3. Respondent to pay two thirds of the appellant’s costs of the appeal assessed on the standard basis

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – ESSENTIALS OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE – STANDARD OF CARE – PARTICULAR PERSONS AND SITUATIONS – OTHER CASES – where the plaintiff was a courier – where the plaintiff injured her shoulder when she fell down the defendant’s stairs while making a delivery – whether the defendant had breached its duty of care to the plaintiff

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE – PARTICULAR CASES – OTHER CASES – where the plaintiff had failed to hold on to the handrail when using the stairs – whether the failure amounted to contributory negligence

DAMAGES – PARTICULAR AWARDS OF GENERAL DAMAGES – QUEENSLAND – whether the trial judge’s calculation of damages was correct

Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld), s 9(1)(a), s 9(1)(b)
Law Reform Act 1995 (Qld), s 10(1)

Hoekstra v Residual Assco Industries Pty Ltd [2004] NSWSC 564, applied
McLean v Tedman
(1984) 155 CLR 306, applied
New South Wales v Fahy [2007] HCA 20, applied
Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40, applied

COUNSEL:

R Morgan for the appellant
S Williams QC, with J Kimmins, for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

HBM Lawyers for the appellant
Maurice Blackburn Cashman for the respondent

  1. THE COURT: This appeal is against a decision in the District Court delivered on 18 January 2007 in which the learned trial judge gave judgment for the plaintiff respondent in the sum of $147,654.61 against the defendant appellant, on the plaintiff’s claim for personal injury.  The learned judge also ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the action assessed on an indemnity basis.  The appellant challenged the finding that it had breached a duty of care to the plaintiff, the quantum ordered for damages by way of future economic loss, and the failure to find that the plaintiff should have her damages reduced by reason of her failure to take reasonable care for her own safety in the incident resulting in personal injury.

The slip

  1. The incident causing the plaintiff injury to her right shoulder happened at approximately 6.35 am on 1 May 2003, when the 56 year old plaintiff was delivering mail and other items to the defendant’s office at its Coopers Plains concrete batching plant.  The plaintiff was a self employed courier, who had been making daily delivery to that office…

Continue reading Green v Hanson Construction Materials Pty Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Green v Hanson Construction Materials Pty Ltd [2007] QCA 260
Case
[2007] QCA 260
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Green v Hanson Construction Materials Pty Ltd concerned the liability and damages for an injury sustained by the plaintiff, a courier, who fell down the stairs of the defendant's premises while making a delivery. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had breached its duty of care towards her by not providing adequate handrails on the stairs. The case was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal, where the central issues were whether the defendant had failed to meet the required standard of care, and whether the plaintiff's failure to hold onto the handrail constituted contributory negligence.

The court considered whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff and whether it had breached that duty by not providing adequate handrails. The court found that the defendant did owe a duty of care to the plaintiff as an invitee on its premises. The court also concluded that the defendant had breached this duty by not providing adequate handrails, which would have facilitated safe use of the stairs by the plaintiff. In relation to contributory negligence, the court determined that the plaintiff's failure to hold onto the handrail did contribute to her injury, but did not absolve the defendant of liability.

The court's reasoning led to the conclusion that the damages awarded to the plaintiff were excessive. The trial judge had awarded the plaintiff $147,654.60, but the appeal court found that this amount was not appropriate given the plaintiff's contributory negligence. The court reduced the damages to $103,358.22, reflecting a 30 per cent reduction. The court further ordered that the defendant pay two thirds of the plaintiff's costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal allowed

2. Reduce damages awarded by 30 per cent to $103,358.22

3. Respondent to pay two thirds of the appellant’s costs of the appeal assessed on the standard basis

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.