Griffin v Lee-Brown & QBE Insurance Ltd - [2000] QSC 299

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Griffin v Lee-Brown and QBE Insurance Limited

ACN 000 157 899 [2000] QSC 299

PARTIES: CRAIG NATHAN GRIFFIN
(Plaintiff)
v
ADAM CHRISTOPHER LEE-BROWN
(First Defendant)
AND
QBE INSURANCE LIMITED ACN 000 157 899
(Second Defendant)

FILE NO: W 71/99

DIVISION: Trial Division

DELIVERED ON: 30 August 2000

DELIVERED AT: Rockhampton

HEARING DATES: 23 and 24August 2000

JUDGE: Dutney J

ORDER: Judgment for the plaintiff against the second defendant for the sum of $110,500.00.

CATCHWORDS: NEGLIGENCE - MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT - PERSONAL INJURIES – LIABILITY ONLY – CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE – Where plaintiff was run over by motorist – where plaintiff walking into roadway – where plaintiff intoxicated - whether motorist put reasonable distance between himself and pedestrian in the circumstances – whether plaintiff failed to take reasonable care of his own safety by walking into roadway.

McLean v Tedman (1984) 155 CLR 306, discussed
Braund v Henning (1941) SR (NSW) 108, discussed
Pennington v Norris (1956) 96 CLR 10, considered Teubner v Humble (1963) 108 CLR 491, considered

COUNSEL:D McMeekin SC for the plaintiff
G Mullins for the first and second defendants

SOLICITORS: Kenny & Partners for the plaintiff
McInnes Wilson for the first and second defendants

DUTNEY J: Craig Griffin was struck by a car on Flinders Parade, Gladstone at about 9:30pm on Saturday 26 September 1998. He was, at the time, in company with two friends, Virginia Hancock and Nick Irons, on his way to Players nightclub. He was injured.

Prior to the commencement of the trial the parties agreed the quantum of Mr Griffins claim at $170,000. Liability remained the issue for the trial.

On Friday 25 September and Saturday morning 26 September the plaintiff had been drinking. He and Mr Irons had attended Players nightclub until about 3am on Saturday before returning to the plaintiff’s flat and drinking a few beers. Before that the plaintiff had been drinking Bourbon at the night club (T15.29). Before going to the night club the plaintiff and Mr Irons had consumed the bulk of the carton of beer they finished the following morning. They had commenced drinking sometime after 5pm on 25 September (T22.40). The session lasted around 12 to 13 hours (T15.54).

After finishing the carton on Saturday morning the plaintiff slept for a few hours and had lunch. Virginia Hancock who lived near by came over to the plaintiff’s flat around 2pm. She, Mr Irons and the plaintiff bought a carton of VB “throwdowns” (250ml bottles) at about 2pm and took them back to the plaintiff’s flat.

There is some disagreement as to when the group commenced drinking on the Saturday afternoon. The plaintiff thought it was about 5pm (T16.8). Both Hancock (T46.15) and Irons (T55.45) thought the beer drinking commenced on the return to the flat with the carton of beer (ie about 2:30pm). I prefer the evidence of Hancock and Irons on this point which was consistent also with the record of the plaintiff’s police interview after 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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Griffin v Lee-Brown & QBE Insurance Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2000] QSC 299
Decision Date: 30/08/2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Craig Nathan Griffin, the plaintiff, initiated proceedings against Adam Christopher Lee-Brown, the first defendant, and QBE Insurance Limited ACN 000 157 899, the second defendant, in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The plaintiff sought damages for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident where he was struck by a car driven by the first defendant while walking along Flinders Parade, Gladstone. The primary legal issues for determination were the liability of the first defendant for negligence, and the extent of the plaintiff's contributory negligence.

The court examined the circumstances leading up to the accident, including the plaintiff's alcohol consumption and his state of intoxication at the time of the incident. The plaintiff had been drinking heavily over a period of approximately 12 to 13 hours prior to the accident. Evidence suggested that his blood alcohol level at the time of the accident was 0.257%, which the court accepted as indicative of significant intoxication. The court also considered the first defendant's actions and whether he exercised reasonable care under the circumstances. It was established that the first defendant did not adequately adjust his driving to accommodate the plaintiff's apparent erratic behavior. The court found that the first defendant was negligent in not providing a sufficient margin of safety between himself and the plaintiff, leading to the collision.

Furthermore, the court assessed the plaintiff's contributory negligence. It concluded that while the plaintiff's intoxication and his decision to walk into the roadway were significant factors, he was not deliberately reckless. The court attributed 35% of the responsibility to the plaintiff and 65% to the first defendant. As a result, the plaintiff was awarded damages of $110,500, which represented 65% of the agreed quantum of $170,000.

In summary, the court found the first defendant liable for negligence and awarded the plaintiff damages, reduced by his contributory negligence. The judgment mandated that the second defendant, QBE Insurance Limited, was responsible for the plaintiff's claim against the first defendant.

Orders