Griggs v Beaudesert Shire Council

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Griggs v Beaudesert Shire Council & Ors [2002] QCA 328

PARTIES:

NORMAN WAYNE GRIGGS
(plaintiff/appellant)

v

BEAUDESERT SHIRE COUNCIL
(first defendant/respondent)

ALLEN DESMOND LOPEZ
(second defendant)

NRMA INSURANCE LIMITED ACN 000 016 722
(third defendant)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 5329 of 2001
DC No 581 of 1999

DIVISION:

District Court at Brisbane

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

30 August 2002

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

19 August 2002

JUDGES:

Davies and Williams JJA and Holmes J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made.

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed with costs

CATCHWORDS:

TORTS – NEGLIGENCE – PROOF OF NEGLIGENCE – SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE - appeal against finding of learned trial judge that the respondent had not been negligent – whether the learned trial judge’s finding was against the evidence or weight of evidence

Brodie v Singleton Shire Council (2001) 75 ALJR 992, considered
Buckle v Bayswater Road Board (1936) 57 CLR 259, considered

COUNSEL:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf
R J Lynch for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf
King and Company for the respondent

1. DAVIES JA:  I agree with the reasons for judgment of Williams JA and with the orders he proposes.

1. WILLLIAMS JA:  The appellant sustained personal injuries on 15 June 1997 when the motorcycle he was riding came into collision with a motor vehicle.  The immediate cause of the collision was the fact that the appellant lost control of the motorcycle because it lost traction on loose gravel present on the road surface.  The incident occurred in the vicinity of the intersection of Kidston Street and Lamington National Park Road in Canungra.  The respondent, Beaudesert Shire Council, was the local authority responsible for those roads.

1. The appellant commenced proceedings claiming damages against both the driver of the other motor vehicle and the respondent.  After a trial the learned judge held:

(i)         there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the other motor vehicle;

(ii)       there was no negligence on the part of the respondent;

(iii)      if the finding of no negligence against the respondent was incorrect, the appellant was contributory negligent to the extent of 30 per cent;

(iv)       damages should be assessed in the total sum of $195,616.18.

1. The appellant has appealed only against the finding that the respondent was not negligent.  There was no appeal against the finding of contributory negligence or the assessment of damages.  If the appeal was allowed there would be judgment for the appellant against the respondent for $136,931.33.

1. At trial the appellant was represented by experienced counsel and all relevant issues were canvassed at some length.  The appellant’s written outline of argument on appeal was prepared by lawyers acting on his behalf, but he appeared in person at the hearing of the appeal.  Principally he relied on what was contained in the written outline of argument.  He did take the…